Forty-Four Ounces

“[I doubt my senses] because,” said Scrooge, “a little thing affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheats. You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. There’s more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!”

After a wonderful meal at Paul and Amy Jo’s last night — beer-cheese soup, salmon cakes, garlic aoli, mashed potatoes, a corn dish that wasn’t grits — Kris and I slept in this morning. When at last we rose, I made hot cocoa for breakfast. I started to prepare a single cup, but that left only enough cocoa powder for one more serving. “Why not just have it all now?” I thought, and so I did. I sat at the table, reading the paper, dunking honey toast into my cocoa. Delicious.

In the afternoon, we saw The 40-Year-Old Virgin. “My gut hurts,” I told Kris as we drove to the theater. “My gut always hurts after I drink cocoa, especially if I drink too much.”

Kris shook her head. “Maybe you should stop buying chantico,” she said.

“I’ll just get some pop at the movie to help soothe my gut,” I said. I’m not sure why I thought this would work.

Kris paid $12 to get us into the matinee. ($12!!!) I bought refreshments. “What can I get you today?” asked the bright young Regal employee.

“Uh, well. I see you have combos available,” I said, pointing at a sign, “but you don’t list the prices for them.”

“I can tell you the prices. Which one would you like?”

“Well, what’s the difference between the nachos and the super nachos?”

“The super nachos come with more chips and two dipping sauces,” she explained, as if the super nachos were the best movie concession in all the world. “Would you like the super nachos?”

How could I refuse? “Uh, sure. How much does that cost?” I asked.

“Ten dollars,” she said, “and it comes with a medium drink. Also, if you buy a combo you can have any candy for two-fifty.”

“Okay,” I said. “I’ll have a diet. And some M&Ms.”

“Is Diet Coke okay?” she said, and I sighed inwardly. Of course Diet Coke is okay — that’s why I say ‘diet’ instead of ‘Diet Pepsi’, yet whenever I ask for a diet soda, the server always asks “Is Diet Coke okay?” or “Is Diet Pepsi okay?” Maybe I should ask for ‘diet cola’ instead.

The girl scooped up our chips and M&Ms and then handed over a tub of diet cola. “That’s a medium?” I asked, awed. She smiled and nodded. The forty-four ounce “medium” drink contained the equivalent of four cans of soda. Thank god I ordered diet.

“I can’t believe we’re paying $24.50 to see a movie,” Kris said as we waited through the barrage of music videos and advertisements that Regal Cinemas inflicts on its customers. I hate Regal.

“At least I got a forty-four ounce diet,” I said.

“The thing of it is,” said my wife, the trained observer, “we didn’t save any money by getting all this food. They didn’t list the prices of the combos because there’s no discount for buying them. They cost the same as if you’d purchased the items seperately. I added it up while you were ordering.”

“At least I got a forty-four ounce diet,” I said.

As the movie began, I realized I was in trouble. I’d been sipping on the soda for only fifteen minutes, and already I needed to urinate. I held out a while longer, but was soon forced to make a dash for the restroom. I hate to miss any part of a film for a bathroom break, but ultimately I had to miss three chunks of The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Forty-four ounces of diet cola are too much for my bladder to handle.

Perhaps those three missed chunks were crucial to one’s enjoyment of the film. Despite my appreciation of Judd Apatow‘s televison work (Freaks and Geeks, Undeclared), I found The 40-Year-Old Virgin mediocre. Parts were funny, but invariably the audience laughed where I didn’t, and I laughed where they didn’t. (The biggest laugh for me came from a music cue, for goodness sake.) This isn’t a movie one needs to see in a theater, if ever.

We did chores in the late afternoon. I tried not to get distracted by side projects. (I have a bad habit that goes something like this: Perhaps I am sweeping the library floor. As I sweep, perhaps I gaze absently at a bookshelf filled with Latin books, and perhaps it occurs to me that I ought to put the Latin books into alphabetical order. Rather than finish sweeping, I pause — because it will only take a minute — and sort the books. Then I pull one of them down to thumb through it. Pehaps I think to myself, “I should begin studying Latin again.” Perhaps I then decide to go upstairs to google a Latin word. Or two. Or three. Perhaps I then decide to check the football scores. And then I might as well try to catch up on my e-mail. Before I know it, Kris is scolding me because once again I’ve forgotten what it is I’m supposed to be doing, which is sweeping the library. Without Kris to guide me, my rooms would be perpetually half-swept, though at least all of my books would be in alphabetical order.)

After chores, I was hungry. The super nacho and the forty-four ounce diet soda hadn’t been filling. “Can I have your leftover Chinese food?” I asked Kris, because I knew she’d say yes. I piled her Mandarin Chicken into a bowl with my General Tso Chicken and stuck it in the microwave. The resulting mass was terrible (deep-fried Chinese food just does not reheat well.) “This sucks,” I said.

“Then don’t eat it,” Kris said, but I did anyhow. I didn’t enjoy it.

Later in the evening, my gut began to hurt again. I ignored it and climbed into bed, but I could not fall asleep. I took a sleep quiz in a magazine: “Are you an owl or a lark?” I was a lark: best in the morning, not performing well late at night. I turned out the light and lay there in my C-PAP mask, breathing deep Darth Vader breaths (breaths that scare the cats), unable to sleep for the gross Chinese food causing a pain in my gut and for the fourty-four ounces of diet cola I’d consumed earlier in the day.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

I had a great day today.

I took off early from work to meet strangers for lunch. That is, I met people I only knew via the internet. In the past, I’ve worried about meeting netfriends — “Will they be the same in person?” I wonder. They’re not. Over the years, I’ve learned that people are almost always even nicer and more interesting in person than they are on-line.

A bunch of geeks had gathered in downtown Portland for Webvisions, a technical conference. At their lunch break, I joined Alan (of bluehole.org), Cat (whom I’d met previously), Paul/PB (who is responsible for the wonderful ORblogs), Matt (who is responsible for much of my lost productivity — he’s the mastermind behind Metafilter and its various spinoffs), and Michael (of whom I knew little before today). We chatted about life over burgers and cokes. It was great to finally meet these people. (And, Tammy — Alan’s a nice guy; you two shouldn’t bicker).

As I walked back to my car, I realized I was near Citizens Photo, one of the professional photography shops in town. I needed a couple of things, and I had some questions, so I stopped by. The fellow who waited on me was actually helpful (I’ve had problems there before), and I was in a rather assertive mood: the combination yielded much information about digital photography, camera equipment, and photoprocessing technique. I’ll have to be assertive more often. I left the store with a new monopod (which can double as a trekking stick), a spare battery for my d70, and two books on processing digital images. I also spent some time chatting with the woman in the photofinishing department, learning what my options are for printing digital photos.

Driving home, I passed the Moreland Theater and noticed that Charlie and Chocolate Factory was playing. “Huh,” I thought to myself, and stopped to see if I could catch a matinee. There wasn’t one to catch, but when I checked at the Oak Grove theater, the show had just begun so I bought a golden ticket.

When I got home, I called Hank and left a message asking if he wants to go see the film. “It’s not scary,” I said. “It’s not even intense.” Actually, maybe it’s a little intense in the nut-sorting room (which is my favorite scene, by the way).

Kris heard me on the phone and stormed into the room. “You are a dead man!” she shouted, but I didn’t know why. “You knew I wanted to see that, and you went without me.” Kris loves Roald Dahl almost as much as Joel does. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is one of her favorite books. I protested that I was just trying to prolong my good day. “Find another showing right now,” she said. So I did.

“The ticket woman’s going to wonder if I’m crazy,” I said.

Kris shook her head. “She won’t even notice.”

As I paid for the tickets, the ticketwoman gave me a funny look. “Weren’t you here for the last showing?” she asked.

And so I’ve seen Charlie and the Chocolate Factory twice already, and plan to see it once more this weekend. Do I like it? Yes, I do. Very much.

To understand that terse review, you need to understand a couple of things:

  1. Though I enjoy Roald Dahl, I am not what I would term a “fan”. I especially like Danny, Champion of the World and The Fantastic Mr. Fox (the latter of which will soon be a film by Wes Anderson — how’s that for exciting?).
  2. I generally dislike Tim Burton‘s films. Ed Wood? Left me cold. Sleepy Hollow? Awful, awful movie. Planet of the Apes? One of the worst films I’ve ever seen. In fact, the only Tim Burton film I’ve liked before this is Edward Scissorhands, though admittedly I was quite fond of that.
  3. Though I thought the trailer for this film was awesome, I went in with low expectations.
  4. I’d heard all the talk about how Johnny Depp was channeling Michael Jackson for his portrayal of Willy Wonka

A slightly longer review would be: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is great fun, better than my memory of the first film. Johnny Depp is not channeling Michael Jackson, and I’m not sure where the reviewers pulled that from. They should be shot for making the comparison. (Depp’s Wonka is freaky, though — be warned.)

The first thirty minutes of this film (up until they enter the factory) are as near perfect as any adaptation of the book can hope to be. The introduction of each of the kids is fantastic. Kris, the Dahl fan, was giggling with glee at spots. “They got Veruca exactly right,” she whispered to me. The factory is an awesome spectacle. It’s great fun. The nut-sorting room made me giddy with joy. There are plenty of sight gags all around.

I spend a lot of time complaining about movies, so it’s refreshing when I can recommend one. This is the third movie I’ve seen this summer that I’m happy to recommend. (The first two being Batman Begins and War of the Worlds.) Go see it!

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to my second sleep study. C-PAP machine, here I come…

Comments

On 15 July 2005 (07:33 PM),
Kris said:

Jd negelected to mention that during our showing, the speakers were having intermittent problems that made it impossible to understand the dialogue but left the music track untouched. As a result, we each received a free movie pass on our way out. It’s like seeing Willy Wonka for free!

On 15 July 2005 (09:40 PM),
Betsy said:

I got dragged to this today (comedy of errors that necessitated my accompanying my rabid fan daughter, who read the book as her first-ever chapter book, no less) expecting to merely endure it. I loved the book, but am not a fan of kid movies in general, kid movies at the theater in particular, and don’t really appreciate Tim Burton or Johnny Depp. (yes, I called myself a ‘sour puss’ on my own blog earlier today…)

Uh – I had to eat my words. Thoroughly enjoyed it, loved the Oompa-Loompa(s) most of all. And the adults in the theater were in hysterics during most of the bits that left the kids cold or doing the ‘huh?’ shrug.

On 16 July 2005 (12:05 AM),
dowingba said:

JD for the love of all that is good and holy…didn’t I warn you about all this background music you seem obsessed to put on your site? ARRGH. And this is an MP3, think of the dial-up users! Won’t somebody please think of the dial-up users?!

On 16 July 2005 (07:07 AM),
alan said:

It was great meeting you, JD. Funny that you mention Tammy — I almost asked you to bring her along in an email, but decided not to scare her again.

I’m glad to hear about Willy Wonka and am considering going to see it in the IMAX at OMSI. With the exception of the dreadful Planet of the Apes, I am a huge Burton/Depp/Elfman fan, so it shouldn’t be difficult for me to love this one.

You and Kris should come over this summer. My wife makes incredible mojitos.

On 16 July 2005 (07:20 AM),
J.D. said:

JD for the love of all that is good and holy…didn’t I warn you about all this background music you seem obsessed to put on your site? ARRGH

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

I told Kris that I was committing an Internet Sin when I posted this. But I don’t care. I love this frickin’s song! :)

On 16 July 2005 (09:24 AM),
Hopeless Romantique said:

The nut room made me giddy as well; I never forgave the original movie for completely forsaking that part. I also loved recognizing the dialogue that came straight out of the book.

On 16 July 2005 (09:33 AM),
Paul J. said:

JD,

Might be too freaky geeky for you but FYI

http://www.freegeek.org/geekfair/index.html

On 16 July 2005 (10:35 AM),
Tammy said:

Alan, thanks for thinking of me. I’m not sure if I have come to terms yet with the nicer, more gentle Alan. The world is a scary place and the internet world is so very unpredictable. But if JD says you are a nice person than I have to assume you are.

Maybe someday we will meet. I just hope it’s in a lighted area with lots of people around. (just kidding)(kinda). And, hey, I’m glad you guys all had fun at your internet gathering. That really would have been cool.

On 16 July 2005 (11:57 AM),
Drew said:

Hey! That’s my t-shirt!

On 16 July 2005 (09:20 PM),
Lynn said:

Glad to hear it’s good. I’m anxious to see it. I hadn’t heard the “channeling Michael Jackson” comment. Though, I did read somewhere that the characterization was based on Marilyn Manson much the same way Jack Sparrow was based on Keith Richards. Can’t say I’d recognize Marily Manson characteristics if I saw ’em, though.

On 17 July 2005 (10:08 AM),
JD’s Electrician said:

Good site JD! I will try to save the exhaust fan, but we are going to have to get rid of the garden hose splice covers in the panel that I know you like. :(

On 17 July 2005 (06:26 PM),
Amy Jo said:

We spent a grand afternoon watching the film at the old, but recently refurbished (I think), theatre in St. Johns. Paul was neglected as a child–he hasn’t read a single Roald Dahl book . . . Poor, poor thing.

On 19 July 2005 (08:54 AM),
Amanda said:

The squirrels were always my favorite part of the book and by far the best part of the movie. “I guess she is a bad nut after all!” made me squeal with delight.

My only criticism of the movie would be the overly poppy Oompa Loompa songs… I felt they should have been chants, but whatever. The movie was great fun.

I’ve heard a lot about the Michael Jackson channeling, but I also did not really see that. I didn’t hear Marilyn Manson but I would be very surprised if that is true… I’ve seen Brian Warner in many an interview and no, I do not see it. A friend of mine mentioned both Carol Burnett and Ed Sullivan. While I’m iffy on Carol, I definitely felt the Ed Sullivan presence.

And dowingba, I think you’re the last person on earth with dial-up. Get high speed! It’s worth it!!!

Movies Better Than the Books That Inspired Them

The book is always better than the movie. Except when it isn’t.

In general, books are better than the films they inspire; however, some movies transcend their source material. For example:

These are the examples that occur to me immediately; I’m sure there are many others.

There’s also a significant body of excellent films made from excellent books. (These often become personal favorites of mine.)

I know that many people actually prefer the Lord of the Rings films to the books. While this boggles my mind, I accept that such a large body of opinion cannot be discounted.

I’ve intentionally not listed cases in which I consider both the film and the movie bad (e.g. Girl With a Pearl Earring; Chocolat; many MIchael Crichton stories, such as Congo; many Stephen King stories, such as Pet Sematary).

I’ve also not listed instances in which I suspect the film is better than the book, but haven’t been exposed to one of them (e.g. Sideways, The Silence of the Lambs).

The next time somebody complains that the book is always better than the movie, remind them that it’s not always the case.

Comments


On 14 June 2005 (10:05 AM),
Andy Baio said:

You think the Running Man movie is better than the book? Yikes.



On 14 June 2005 (10:14 AM),
J.D. said:

HA! :)

Have you read the book (well, story really)? It’s awful. (I’m not claiming the film is good, by the way, just that it’s better than the book.)



On 14 June 2005 (11:05 AM),
Rich R said:

I would disagree with you on LA Confidential (Of course, right?)

I think the movie holds its own. I am quite fond of the way it was approached and the acting was tops. With that said, I still think the book was better, simply for the greater expanse of the story and characters in the book.

I really loved Cider House Rules as a film, but I think the book is better for the same reason I mentioned above. You can’t put the character study that is the book into a 2.5 hour movie…



On 14 June 2005 (11:14 AM),
Joel said:

Hmm… I actually quite like The Princess Bride novel, but do I like it more than the movie? I… think so. So! I very mildly disagree with you! Which makes this a controversial post, my friend, brace yourself for a torrent of commentary.



On 14 June 2005 (11:16 AM),
J.D. said:

re: Cider House Rules

In my personal quest to quell my verbose ways, I forgot to mention why this subject even entered my mind.

The book group discussed John Irving’s The World According to Garp last weekend (he also wrote Cider House Rules). I thought the book was fantastic. It’s my favorite of the five Irving books I’ve read (yes, better than Owen Meany, all you Irving fans).

Bernie and Kristi loaned us the movie, which we watched last night. The movie wasn’t bad, but it sure wasn’t good, either. It was mainly just a mess. It made me wonder how a film could capture all that Garp contains. It can’t.

(I’m reading another book now — Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell — that seems unfilmable.)

During our book group discussion, Kristi mentioned that movies are never as good as the books, but I disagreed, though the only example I could think of at the time was The Princess Bride.



On 14 June 2005 (11:25 AM),
Cepo said:

there’s NO WAY total recall is better than the book. :) i wouldn’t know because i haven’t read it but i like philip k. dick and TOTAL RECALL WAS A HORRIBLE MOVIE. i hope the book wasn’t that bad.



On 14 June 2005 (01:58 PM),
Aimee said:

Great thoughts, Jackal.

I feel as though I can be fan of both a film and a book, if I judge them as two separate entities. I find I almost always leave the theatre disappointed when I expect a film to be a “true” to the book that it’s based upon. Sometimes I think that it’s folly to even compare a book to a movie of the same plotline, title, characters, etc. To elaborate using your example Gone with the Wind: While the book offers a detailed, eloquent, story-specific [Scarlett’s] Civil War, the film bequeathed a technicolor, epic legacy to American cinematic history. To me, the two mediums are distinctly separated by their essence: books encourage use of the reader’s imagination; film dazzles us with special effects, innovative cinematography, and star power.



On 14 June 2005 (02:52 PM),
Denise said:

I am surprised to see A Clockwork Orange on your list. I personally think the film is much worse than the book. I think the film revolves are sex, which the book does not.

But then I am not a huge fan of Kubrick to begin with.



On 14 June 2005 (05:24 PM),
dowingba said:

I absolutely agree on Forrest Gump. Man was that book horrendous. Perhaps the worst book I’ve ever read. And I’ve read Star Wars fan fiction, for crying out loud.



On 14 June 2005 (10:56 PM),
Ron said:

I see you have mentioned my favorite movie – The Shawshank Redemption. Most people have never heard of it. I can watch it over and over and see something new each time.



On 15 June 2005 (06:50 AM),
Tammy said:

Ron thats soooo like my husband. He watches it every time it comes on TV. One day he made me sit down and watch it with him. I ended up liking it but, but I couldn’t watch it a dozen times over like he does!



On 15 June 2005 (07:36 AM),
Amanda said:

Ron, I’m with you. What a beautiful, touching movie. The acting, directing, soundtrack… everything about it is superb and inspiring. Truly a classic.



On 21 July 2005 (06:07 PM),
Martin said:

I agree on Total Recall, but probably not on Blade Runner (I saw it after reading the book and my immediate reaction was that the movie was laughably bad. I’ve since started to appreciate the cinematography and the music), and definitely not on the Minority Report movie, which only added huge plot holes, improbable action sequences and silly bits where Tom Cruise chases his eyes or listens to crazy doctors singing Swedish children’s songs.

Why Star Wars Sucks

“They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Naturally they became heroes.” — Prologue, Star Wars novelization by George Lucas

Star Trek is about to go dormant, a decade after descending into gross suckage. I can’t help but hope that it hibernates for decades. It likely won’t. The Star Wars franchise once descended into dormancy after a disappointing third film; when it revived fifteen years later, things had become even worse. (Admittedly, the new Battlestar Galactica kicks ass, but that’s only because it’s a re-imagining of the original concept; if it had picked up where the old show left off, it wouldn’t have worked.)

But why does Star Wars suck now? What happened? Where did it go wrong?

I wrote this three years ago during my rant on the last film:

As we left the theater, Pam wondered aloud if George Lucas had even watched the first three films before making the last two. He seems to have forgotten what Star Wars was about. Or perhaps changed his mind.

Now that I’ve read the script and the graphic novel for the upcoming Star Wars Episode Three: Revenge of the Sith, I’ve begun to think more on where the franchise failed.

The Role of Our Heroes
In the original Star Wars, Han and Luke and Leia were accidental heroes. They were small players on a big stage. The galaxy in which they lived was vast, and full of wonder.

Luke, for example, was a simple moisture farmer on a backwater planet. He had no future. His dreams of leaving to join “The Academy” were constantly dashed.

LUKE: It just isn’t fair. Oh, Biggs is right. I’m never gonna get out of here!
THREEPIO: Is there anything I might do to help?
LUKE: Well, not unless you can alter time, speed up the harvest, or teleport me off this rock!
THREEPIO: I don’t think so, sir. I’m only a droid and not very knowledgeable about such things. Not on this planet, anyways. As a matter of fact, I’m not even sure which planet I’m on.
LUKE: Well, if there’s a bright center to the universe, you’re on the planet that it’s farthest from.
THREEPIO: I see, sir.

Now we’re asked to believe that all along Luke was some crown prince, destined for greatness. That Chewbacca and Yoda are pals. (Wait and see, wait and see.) Instead of being bit players in a galactic struggle — iconic everymen (and everywomen) — our heroes are actually larger-than-life bluebloods upon whom the fate of the galaxy has always rested.

Give me a break.

Focus Shift
The first film (or fourth, depending on how you count) focused on the periphery of this galactic struggle. The second film shifted more to the center, though it still felt as if our heroes were only small players. The third film, however, crossed the line: our heroes were in the thick of it, key to the galaxy’s freedom. And with the prequel trilogy, we’re no longer able to see the periphery at all. Lucas has forgotten about it. (Or discarded it.)

And with it, he’s forgotten about fun.

Would it be fun to watch a movie about the United States Senate debating trade sanctions? Of course not. Would it be fun to watch a movie about a Kennedy or a Bush kid coming to power? I don’t think so. Would it be fun to watch a movie about a poor kid who becomes a karate champion? You know it would. (“Wax on, wax off, Daniel-san!”)

Over the past twenty years, Lucas has gone from a young, creative artist to a wealthy movie mogul. His realm of experience has changed, and I think that shows in his filmmaking. If you skim early drafts of The Star Wars, which once included material from all of the films in the series, it’s clear that Lucas has shifted from the realm of the common to the realm of elite. What was once important to him, no longer is. He’s writing from his experience, and his experience is one of wealth and comfort.

Scale
In the prequels, Lucas has changed the scale of the films. The galaxy seems small. Our heroes play central, pivotal roles in the titanic (but nonsensical) political struggles.

One of the wonderful things about the original Star Wars universe was the diversity of life and civilization, the awesome scale of the story. The galaxy seemed vast. No wonder our heroes were small players; there were simply too many other people for them to be anything else. There were always new and bizarre aliens to discover, strange new worlds to explore. (To be fair, Lucas has continued to entertain with unique worlds; I loved the water world Kamino in Attack of the Clones.)

In the early years, the Star Wars story was continued in novelizations and comic books. Authors like Alan Dean Foster and Brian Daley seemed to grasp the fundamental concept of a vast universe. The comics most certainly got it. These supplementary texts effectively conveyed the sense of scale present in the first film.

The prequels, however, make the galaxy seem like a small and petty place.

Prettification
The original trilogy — or at least the first two-thirds of it — was dirty and gritty. That was part of its charm. The Millennium Falcon didn’t work. Luke’s garage was a mess (and whoa! so was the jawa’s sandcrawler). The base on the ice planet Hoth was in scattered disarray. Yoda was a slovenly housekeeper. The Death Star was mostly polish and chrome, but even it had a stinky trash compactor.

The space ships and the ground vehicles looked real. One got the feeling they might have been produced on a planet called Detroit, and that with time they’d gradually fallen apart. Many of the ships and vehicles we saw had outlived their warranties.

Compare that with the new trilogy. Everything is bright, shiny and new. Only Watto’s shop on Tattooine bares any sort of resemblance to the old messes we’re used to. (Oh — and the pods for the pod-race; they’re fairly junky.) All of the space ships we see are sparkly clean. Maybe that’s a cost of moving from models to computer animation.

The water world Kamino (to which Kenobi flies to learn about clone troopers) is fascinating, but I have to wonder: don’t things on this planet rust? Isn’t there seaweed of some sort? Or is everything just washed clean by the perpetual rain? And, on a larger scale, do all of the planets have oxygen-based atmospheres?

De-Mystification
In the original trilogy — especially the first film — The Force was a mysterious mystical mental power. It was a rare gift, difficult to harness.

The prequel trilogy has made a mockery of The Force. Does anyone say “May the Force be with you?” Of course not. George Lucas has forgotten about it. All he remembers is the Jedi mind trick, that Jedi can jump really very high, and that the Force can let bad Jedi shoot lightning out of their fingertips.

Yes, the Force was a silly quasi-religious structure. So what? It was fun. It doesn’t even exist in the prequel trilogy. It’s been replaced by midichlorians and magic.

QUI-GON : With your permission, my Master. I have encountered a vergence in the Force.
YODA : A vergence, you say?
MACE WINDU : Located around a person?
QUI-GON : A boy… his cells have the highest concentration of midi-chlorians I have seen in a life form. It is possible he was conceived by the midi-chlorians.
MACE WINDU : You’re referring to the prophesy of the one who will bring balance to the Force…you believe it’s this boy??
QUI-GON : I don’t presume…
YODA : But you do! Revealed your opinion is.
QUI-GON : I request the boy be tested.

I guarantee you, that scene would never have found its way into the first trilogy. (In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that if The Phantom Menace had been made first, there never would have been a sequel of any sort. The film would have bombed because of stuff like that.)

It may be that George Lucas has lost religion during the past twenty years. Maybe he’s an atheist now, and doesn’t want to encourage any sort of religious thought, and so has shifted the Force from “hocus-pocus religion” (as Han would call it) to a pseudo-scientific explanation. I’d rather have the hocus-pocus religion, and so would you.

Bad Acting
Natalie Portman is not a bad actress, but George Lucas’ direction sure makes her seem like one.

Ewan McGregor is not a bad actor, but George Lucas’ direction sure makes him seem like one.

Even Hayden Christiansen isn’t that bad an actor, but it’s unbelievable that he was asked to carry this prequel trilogy on his shoulders. To make matters worse, George Lucas seems to have chosen to print the worst possible reading of his every line.

Marketing
Do I really need to go into this? Have you ever seen a larger marketing juggernaut? It makes me wonder if the this prequel trilogy is simply a six-hour long advertisement meant to get consumers to buy toys, tacos, and dark chocolate M&Ms.

The appearance of the first Ewok marked the end of Star Wars as we know it.

Nonsensical Political Struggles
Here’s a quiz:

1) What is the plot of The Phantom Menace?
2) What is the plot of Attack of the Clones?
3) Who are the good guys in each of these films? Who are the bad guys? Why?

The first question is moderately easy. The bad guys are the (gasp) Trade Federation. They’ve blockaded Naboo for some reason (do we ever know why? does it matter?).

(And let me rant about this for a moment: how stupid is it that the “blockade” is simply an equatorial band of ships? A band of ships that may even be in stationary orbit above the queen’s palace? Pretty damn stupid, I say. Even stupider is the fact that when our heroes try to escape the planet, they blast off right into the blockade instead of, say, heading toward the polar regions in order to elude the known enemy. Dumb.)

The second question, however: I defy you to answer the second question. (Harry Knowles once mounted a spirited, and earnest, attempt to do so, but only confused me more. He seemed to miss the irony that the plot actually needed explaining, and that it took him several hundred words to do so. Inadequately.)

Here’s a second quiz:

1) What is the plot of A New Hope?
2) What is the plot of The Empire Strikes Back?
3) What is the plot of Return of the Jedi?

Hmmm. Suddenly it seems obvious that the prequels lack a…

Loss of Wonder
The fundamental problem with the prequel trilogy is that they no longer impart a sense of wonder.

The first Star Wars films were filled with wonder: the aliens in the cantina, the lumbering Star Destroyers, the awesome power of the Death Star, the Imperial Walkers storming the base on the ice planet Hoth, the cloud city of Bespin, and even the speeder race across the forest moon of Endor.

The first two films amazed because they imparted a sense of wonder. Our heroes were small, but they’re actions took place on a vast an awesome stage.

Compare this to the eye-sore that is the climax of Attack of the Clones. Can you follow what’s happening? Of course not. Nobody can. It’s an orgasm of gratuitous digital effects. There are hundreds, or thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of objects on screen at once. There’s nothing to latch onto.

My heart broke for every dead X-Wing pilot in the first film. When Porkins flamed out, I cared. I cared because the battle was kept on a small scale, an identifiable scale. There’s no wonder involved in an all-out fight between a gajillion clone troopers and whoever it is they’re fighting. (I can’t even remember, which is a bad, bad sign.)

Another example: I want to be awed by the vast Asimovian city-world of Coruscant, but I can’t. It’s an ocean of skyscrapers and painful-to-watch aerial highways. It’s nothing but a cornucopia of digital effects. It doesn’t give me a sense of awe; it makes me depressed.

What Might Have Been
For several years, I have maintained (and I continue to maintain) that the ideal Star Wars episode one was actually Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. It would be child’s play to retcon that film so that it occurred in the Star Wars mythos. It would fit perfectly.

But there are scores of other possibilities that would have worked well. Any half-way literate Star Wars fan could have constructed a better prequel trilogy than what Lucas has produced. My heart aches to consider what might have been.

Conclusion
Is there hope for Star Wars? I think there may be. But if a final trilogy is going to be made, it oughtn’t be done for many yeas. A decade maybe. Yes, I know George Lucas is old, but so what? The less he’s involved the better, in my opinion. I think it’s important that the stories come from his mind, that he provide the basis for the screenplay, but the best thing that could be done for the franchise now is for Lucas to take a back seat. Let others take the helm.

Despite all of these complaints, despite the fact the current state of Star Wars sucks, the fact remains that I will go see Revenge of the Sith in the theaters. My geek friends and I have discussed boycotting the film on principle, but ultimately I’m going to lose this moral battle. And maybe that’s the only thing that matters. (The one saving grace is this: my expectations for this film could not possibly be any lower; it’s as if it cannot help but exceed them.)

The kids I know have begun to love love Star Wars. Harrison and Emma, for example, have now seen the entire original trilogy. They love it. They play Star Wars all the time, exactly like we used to do. I hope they don’t see the prequel trilogy for many years. Let them enjoy this sense of wonder while they can.

Postscript
It’s still possible to produce Star Wars material that maintains the feeling of the original trilogy. It happens all the time. Books, comics, and video games all tap into this feeling now and again. For example, the game Jedi Outcast, which I obsessed over several years ago, did an outstanding job of putting the player in a galaxy that felt like the one from the original trilogy. It’s possible, but not from the mind of George Lucas.

Links
My memories as part of the Star Wars generation
Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace script
78 Reasons to Hate Star Wars Episode One (as if you needed any more)
Star Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Clones script
64 Reasons to Hate Star Wars Episode Two (as if you needed any more)
My review of Attack of the Clones
Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith script (plot summary)

Comments


On 29 April 2005 (10:58 AM),
dowingba said:

Plot of Episode 2: Chancellor Palpatine, the Lord of the Sith, secretly builds a clone army and creates a war to secure his place as supreme emporer of the republic. Anakin marries Padme, starts to turn to the dark side.

What is so complicated about that?

And the one thing I love about ALL of the star wars films, is the “lived-in” feel of the universe. As you describe above, how things look worn and used. Same in the new trilogy as it is in the old. Not sure what you’re problem is, here. CG has nothing to do with the lack of used-ness of the ships and stuff, because there is no lack.

I’m really sorry to say, but you seem to be falling into that ever growing camp that (at least subconsciously) believes:

A) CG is evil.
B) New is evil.

The old Star Wars films are awesome. I’ve watched them a bazillion times. The new ones are different, and awesome. Many people complain that the ships’ styles are too different. Yeah, they are ships built during a time of peace (there hasn’t been a full scale war in THOUSANDS OF YEARS), built for looks, much like cars nowadays. In the old trilogy, we’re seeing ships and vehicles built for war, like jeeps and hummers nowadays. The Deathstar is a giant war machine.

I didn’t much like the new Yoda puppet in Ep1, but the CG Yoda in Ep2 (which was based on the Empire puppet) is perfect.

Lucas does know what he’s doing. He’s dedicated his entire life to these movies, trust me he hasn’t forgotten about the original trilogy. The whole point of the prequels is to better explain the original movies. It’s backstory, much like the appendices in any given Tolkien book.

Now, maybe someone like me, who loves reading the appendices in Tolkien books, is who these films are tailored toward. I don’t know. But I’m definitely a fan.

The acting, while not great, doesn’t bother me. The acting in the original trilogy was just as bad, in my opinion. There are some definite weak spots in the Ep2 script, though — near the beginning of the film, it seems way too rushed as they try to cough out as much plot build up as possible. The worst actor in any Star Wars film to date, though, is the black guy who plays Padme’s chief of security in Ep2. Man, that guy can barely even choke out his lines.

And the Luke being a “crown prince, destined for greatness” isn’t even a construct of the new trilogy; it was revealed during Empire, hailed by many as the greatest Star Wars film to date.

Furthermore, as each new film gets closer to the timeline of the original trilogy, they get more “Star Wars”ish, if you follow me. Ep2 was definitely much more reminiscent of the original trilogy than Ep1, and I’m very excited to see Ep3 (and I’ve been very careful not to see any spoilers…your links on this page not helping matters much…the dark side of the force is strong…)

On 29 April 2005 (11:27 AM),
jeremy said:

Harrison and Emma won’t be able to handle the most recent three movies for some time – the first three were a stretch. Believe it or not, I think the new computer effects make the newest movies way to hard-core for the kids.

On 29 April 2005 (11:58 AM),
Rich R said:

Well, I’m not a big fan of the last 2 movies, but I’m not 8-14 anymore. I have also been exposed to lots of special effects, vs. not having seen very many good ones when the original came out.

I heard that the IMAX version of ep2 was the one to watch. They had to cut 45 minutes out because IMAX film is hard to string up and can’t be longer than about 90 minutes. SO the entire love story got cut out. I may have actually liked the movie in that state.

As far as ep3 goes, I think I may like it best of the newest set– maybe even better than Jedi… because it lends it self to less fluffiness.

The point I have to really disagree with you on is marketing. Yes the machine for ep3 is a juggernaut, but Lucas was showing his prowess when he made ep4. He was the first director to keep all of the toy/ancillary marketing rights to his little film. The studio happily gave those rights to the young fool. And he had the last laugh. Was the marketing as sophisticated and as prevalent– no. But he was the start of making money from a movie outside of the box office.

On 29 April 2005 (12:54 PM),
dowingba said:

Also: Luke starts out as a young poor farmboy from the far outreaches of space who dreams of becoming a star pilot.

Anakin starts out as a young poor slave boy from the far outreaches of space (same planet as Luke) who dreams of becoming a star pilot.

On 29 April 2005 (03:16 PM),
Denise said:

You know – I read this whole post thinking my thoughts exactly but then I read dowingba’s comments and I can see the argument. Looking at it from a pre-war point of view makes it easier to swallow.

I still agree that I don’t like the CG, but mostly when dealing with actual characters in the movie. I loved Chewy – he was one of my favorite characters in the first three movies – but I despise Jar Jar Binks. I think he would have been much more believable if they would have made a real costume for him instead of just using the computer graphics.

On 29 April 2005 (04:16 PM),
Dave said:

Although I agree with JD on his overall disappointment with the state of the Star Wars mythos as it has progressed (and degraded), I do see some redeeming qualities to the arc as a whole. I also think that the series (original) is not without it’s warts and that JD would gloss over them in a wave of nostalgia.

I agree with JD’s disappointment with the Force becoming just a matter of midichlorian manipulation and losing the mystical nature that seems to pervade the first three movies. To salvage the difference between series (original) and series (followup), in the second (pre-Empire) films, the average person probably didn’t know that midichlorians formed the basis of Force-sensitivity and so to the average person it looked mystical. By series (original) the only people around who would have known about them would be Palpatine, Vader, Yoda and Ken-obi (so spelled b/c JD’s filters won’t let one write out “K” “E” “N” “O” “B” “I”). The former two aren’t going to advertise this, nor are the latter two going to let on that they know a whole lot about it for fear of being exterminated. Of course, it robs us, the viewers, of the mystical experience when we find out about it/them.

Second, I view the glossy and new, nearly devoid of wear, nature of the series (followup) films as being the cause of the Republic’s fall. Palpatine uses that sterility and complacence to topple the Republic and replace it with the Empire. Similarly, Lucas is using it to simultaneously provide us with what in many ways is a picture of an egalitarian utopia in order to show us just how poorly things go (for certain people) under the Empire and how much is lost in the fall of the Republic. Under the Empire things get much Darker (from the Death Star to Bespin to the Emperor’s quarters) and grittier for most of the common folk. In contrast, the Death Star is the epitome of sterility, both in form and function (excluding the trash compactor, which I’ll deal with in a moment).

Third, the series (original) is not without it’s gaping holes. Most critics thought that Mark Hamill’s acting (along with the majority of the rest of the cast except for Alec Guiness) was absolute crap and couldn’t believe that Lucas would cast such a neophyte in such a pivotal role. And who puts something as mundane (and worthless) as a trash compactor on a brand new space station that’s designed to vaporize planets? You’d think they’d come up with something better to do with trash than mash it once they figured out hyperspace travel. Worse, why bother to stick some kind of monster in the brand new space station’s trash compactor? How did it get there? Is this some kind of Sith garbage disposal technology, or merely a really old style trash compacting defense system?

What I’ve never understood is why, when Vader’s wandering around on that first ship (and every scene thereafter) in the original film, doesn’t he recognize a) the astro mech that was his buddy for years and which was used to help pilot his fighter, and b) the protocol droid that he built from scratch as a boy, was his companion for decades, and used to assist Padme (his wife)? Would it not tell even the casual observer that there was something fishy going on, or at least some connection to one’s former life and spouse when your former property ends up in the hands of your sworn enemy? Or better yet, wouldn’t both droids know that Anakin Skywalker = Darth Vader? You might think that they’d say something to someone (ie, Leia) at some point. Or, hmmmmmm, why wouldn’t Vader figure out that there are some Skywalker’s around and keep an eye on them? Oh, wait, his mother didn’t have any family, so apparently Luke went into the infant Jedi witness protection program but they decided to throw everyone off the scent by keeping the same last name as his father and making some poor dupes who just appear to be hapless moisture farmers when in fact they are really highly trained Alderaanian or Naboo-ese agents who are sworn to protect Luke from his heritage by raising him as a hapless moisture farmer keep him in squalor and absolute ignorance. Fortunately there’s a hermit nearby who dresses like a Jedi and has the same last name as Vader’s original master but because he’s changed his first name to Ben, no one can see that he’s really Superman.

Or whatever…

I find that the books that’ve been published in the Star Wars universe go a long way toward rectifying some of the flaws JD notes in the films and filling in many of the blanks. On the other hand, let’s face facts. Lucas didn’t have the whole story arc in mind when he wrote “Star Wars”, “The Empire Strikes Back” and “The Return of the Jedi”. The second set of films is a cobbled together set of ideas that’s designed to capitalize on the success of the first series of films. That, ultimately, is what handicaps the new films.

On 29 April 2005 (04:21 PM),
Jennifer said:

As I write this response Emma and Harrison are playing Star Wars. They have built and Imperial Walker out of k’nex. Han, Luke and Leia are actually characters from Harrison’s pirate set. Legos are used to create various ships. It doesn’t matter the toy, the play is always Star Wars.
Harrison’s favorite part of the trilogy is when Darth Vader saves Luke and returns to the good side. He also likes to act out Luke getting his arm cut off. Harrison has also learned how to play the theme music from Star Wars.
Emma’s favorite part is when Princess Leia gets chained to Jabba, because she says it is silly. Of course she also loves the ewoks.
I prefer to enjoy the fun of the original trilogy and ignore the new releases. I have to go now, an argument has ensued over the color of Leia’s eyes.

On 29 April 2005 (09:42 PM),
dowingba said:

I assume the droids have had their memory erased at some point. I also assume that Episode 3 will explain when and why this happens. Also, when does Darth Vader see either of the droids when he’s in that ship? That’s right: never.

What we also don’t know: does Darth Vader know he has surviving children? From what I understand, he kills Padme when she’s pregnant, perhaps even when she’s in the early stages of pregnancy — so he might not even know she was pregnant in the first place. I don’t think he’s gonna spend much time combing the outer reaches of the galaxy for skywalkers, in that case. Not that he probably has much free time to do so anyway, as I assume the life of a Sith is much the same as the life of a Jedi, in that they generally just embark on various missions, without much vacation time.

I don’t think secrecy is why Leia’s name was changed…she was adopted by people named Organa. Luke was adopted by people named Skywalker, so his name remains Skywalker. I don’t know how many sextillions of lifeforms live in the galaxy, but I’m sure there are plenty of Skywalkers around — so even if Vader was looking around for Skywalkers, it might be hard to pinpoint who his son is, who he doesn’t even know, or care, exists. Also, I doubt Tatooine has much in the way of a registrar of names on hand, as there isn’t any government to speak of there. So unless Vader goes there and knocks on every door asking “is there a Skywalker here?”, while getting truthful answers out of each resident, even though he looks so menacing…

On 29 April 2005 (11:14 PM),
J.D. said:

I am so dedicated to you, the readers of foldedspace. How dedicated? I’m so dedicated that I spent my afternoon re-watching The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones.

Here’s a dirty little secret: although I complain about these two films, although I just wrote an entire weblog lambasting them, I still watch each of them a couple of times a year. I’ve probably seen The Phantom Menace ten times and Attack of the Clones at least half a dozen times.

Usually, I find it an exercise in sadism. Today it was kind of fun. Today, I took notes. Lots of them. I mean that I annotated the damn films down to the second in order to reply to some of dowingba’s points. In the end, however, I think that’d be counter-productive. Instead, I’ll reply with general impressions.

First off, I was surprised to find that this time I found the second film more enjoyable than the first. This has never been the case before. Today, though, Jar-Jar Binks grated just a little too much; the political intrigue was slower in the first film; and, perhaps worst of all, there were actually more plot holes in the first film.

What about the “lived in” feel of the universe? Dowingba’s right that the first film does share that with the original trilogy. I’d missed it before, but sure enough, it’s there: Watto’s junkyard, Anakin’s home, the various ships (except the Naboo flyers), and even the close-ups of the battle droids all exhibit signs of wear and tear.

(That’s not to say that I don’t have problems with the CGI, because I do. The large CGI armies in the final battle scene are painful to watch. I wish that those who work on CGI battle scenes would watch some actual footage of battle scenes staged with live actors, or, preferably read accounts and view drawings/photos/paintings of historical battles.)

However, Attack of the Clones is guilty as charged. Every set in the film is spotless. Nearly every ship is spit-and-polished. Remember how I complained about the structures on the water world Kamino not exhibiting any signs of rust of mildew, etc? It’s worse. Ken-obi and Jango Fett have a fire fight in which lightsabers, blasters, turbo lasers, rockets, and a jetpack all bombard a landing platform. Yet how much damage is visible? None. The platform is untouched. Bizarre! There are many similar examples. Attack of the Clones does not exhibit the same lived-in feel as the other Star Wars films: not the bars, not the ships, not the living quarters. (There are a couple of exceptions, particularly on Tattooine, but they simply serve to accentuate the problem.)

Re: CGI in general. I am guilty as charged. It’s not that I dislike new things — I don’t — but I do generally dislike CGI. It’s not that I dislike CGI out of spite, or for an arbitrary reason; it’s just that I feel that it’s often misused. Filmmakers seem unable to show restraint. There are many films that use CGI in a judicious fashion, and I’m quick to praise these. (Examples include Amelie, Spider-Man (and its sequel), and even the new Battlestar Galactica.) Too many films, though, follow the Peter Jackson’s Helms Deep path, or the Phantom Menace path, the path to the dark side, the path down which more is actually less.

Dowingba’s right about another thing: the CGI Yoda looks damn good (except during his lightsaber battle).

I still think the acting isn’t that great. I suspect this has to do with Lucas’ direction. However, after taking careful notes, and rewinding the bad scenes multiple times, it’s pretty clear that the script is the culprit. Some of the lines are just awful, no matter how they’re read.

Ultimately, some sense can be made of Episode Two’s plot. And, for the most part, dowingba has it nailed. The problem is, this whole muddled thing is very difficult to follow. As I say, I’ve watched the film a half dozen times. I’m a smart guy. I have a college degree. I read Proust for pleasure. I love the twisty passages found in a film like Rashomon. Still, I could only decipher Attack of the Clones when I took notes on the damn thing. Maybe I’m not as smart as I think I am. Maybe I’m an idiot. Or maybe we’re all confused because the plot, though present, is muddled and difficult to see.

The plot of the second film is not as simple as dowingba makes it out to be. It can be summarized thusly: for whatever reason (we’re never really sure), a group of star systems has begun to break away from the Republic. These “Separatists” are led by Count Dooku, is secretly Lord Tyranus, a dark lord of the Sith, and partner with Darth Sidious (aka the Chancellor). Tyranus has been employing Jango Fett to create an army of clones. This army, in development for ten years (since the end of episode one), is destined to be used by the Republic to fight the Separatists. (But wait! didn’t I just say Dooku led the Separatists? I did indeed.) The Separatists basically comprise various financial interests, groups with names like the Trade Federation, the Banking Guild, the Commerce Alliance, etc. Dooku — and, apparently, Jango — are helping them construct an army of battle droids. They’ve also begun to develop the battle station that we know will become the Death Star. Dooku/Tyranus is doing all this work behind the scenes while Sidious/Palpatine is manipulating the Senate and the Jedi council.

So, you see, a plot is present, it’s just rather complicated. Certainly more complicated than any of the other films in the series. Basically, Dooku/Tyranus and Sidious/Palpatine are leading the galaxy into Civil War for their own nefarious purposes.

I’m still not persuaded that the stories of the first two films (and what I know of the third) do a good job of setting up the original trilogy. In fact, they do a rather poor job. Yes they connect the dots, but they do it in a very clumsy way. They try to hard. They take the feeling of magic out of it for me.

Moving on: Dave, I’m well aware the original series has warts. Most of Return of the Jedi is one big wart. However, the problems with the first three films are smaller, to me. Also, I’m apt to be much more forgiving of these because I grew up with them. I love Buckaroo Banzai despite the fact it’s a bad film for this very reeason.

I think Dave has an interesting point regarding the clean/gritty dichotomy based on the descent into Empire.

Rich, I was actually going to mention the whole bit about Lucas negotiating for the marketing rights for the first film. I had it typed out under the marketing subhead, but then I edited it out for some reason. I should have left it in! :)

There you have it: Dowingba makes some good points, though I don’t agree with all of them. (Par for the course!)

Favorite part of Phantom Menace: uh, I’m thinking here — oh yeah! the pod race!

Least favorite: Jar Jar Fucking Binks

Favorite part of Attack of the Clones: Ken-obi dives through Amidala’s window, catching the assassin droid thing

Least favorite: the painful, painful, painful love scenes (followed closely by Yoda with a lightsaber)

On 01 May 2005 (08:29 PM),
Paul said:

The 5/1/05 article about Star Wars.

On 02 May 2005 (08:44 PM),
Nendae said:

You rock. Star Wars is the WORST movie ever, i am glad you know that it sucks. And the only use for a Lightsaber is as Christmas lighting. Darth Vader has Asthma. Yoda is a green prune with a speech problem. Luke is a loser. Leia gets her hair done at “Cinnabon.” George Lucas is an idiotic moron. The answer to every question in star wars is the Force.
Why did that happen?
the Force
How did it happen?
the Force
Why does star wars suck?
the Force

On 03 May 2005 (11:19 AM),
Keith said:

Years ago I read a book called True Believer. This book is about how someone can put forth a dogma, a set of beliefs and then preach them to people in such a way as to totally suspend their ability to analyzethe truth. In other words, you tell the people a lie, and they believe it, and follow the teachings that accompany the lie. This is a simplified explanation, but it covers mass movements like Nazism and Communism and anti-Starwarsism.

Are the movies perfect? No, none of them are. There is poor acting in all 5. There are numerous mistakes in all 5. One complaint I’ve seen over and over is that the starships are clean…well if thats a flaw in the first 2 movies how about in episode 5 where the Falcon flies from Hoth to Bespin…without using the hyperdrive. How many thousands of years should that have taken?

And the complaint about how the story has shifted from people on the side to people in the center is silly. Obi Wan was a General who came to fame in the Clone Wars. Of course he was going to be a character in the center, and anyone involved with him would be too. Princess Leia was a Princess and a Senator…she was not an accidental heroine by any means.

I feel the poster has fallen into the True Believer school of thought that the SW movies suck. Are they perfect? No. Do they entertain? I think so. Lucas changed moviemaking, and continues to do things no other filmmaker does.

I could go on to comment on the other points the initial poster attacks the movies on. I think in the end it would be an attack on the intelligence of the poster…If he can’t even comprehend the subtle story Lucas is weaving or enjoy the storytelling, then I doubt any criticism of mine will sway him. If he hates Star Wars so much, I suggest not seeing Episode 3, and never doing anything at all related to the 6 works.

On 05 May 2005 (07:35 AM),
A.R.Yngve said:

All you diehard fans who feel a need to “defend” STAR WARS against criticism, please bear this in mind:

1. Lucasfilm Corp. has not paid you one red cent to do this costly PR work.

2. Lucasfilm Corp. does not owe you anything.

3. You do NOT own the STAR WARS franchise. Lucasfilm Corp. does.

4. Lucasfilm Corp. is owned by George Lucas, not by you.

5. George Lucas does not owe you anything.

6. You do not owe George Lucas anything.

Now, my opinion on the prequel films… I’ve worked many years in the IT industry and seen a LOT of computer graphics.

Computer graphics in film should NEVER DRAW ATTENTION to itself.

Because when it does, it ruins the experience. You simply stop caring, when you’re constantly reminded that you’re not watching physical objects.

CGI works best with subtle effects and enhancements – such as editing or background detail – or water and cloud effects which require lots of small, anonymous particles.

The ONE acting CGI character I’ve seen who really worked in a movie, was Andy Serkis’ Gollum in THE LORD OF THE RINGS. (Maybe Peter Jackson knows something about CGI that George Lucas doesn’t.)

And yeah, the plots of the prequel are convoluted and boring. I don’t need the prequels. I have the original trilogy, and that’s fine with me.

And as for the Ewoks… I LIKE the Ewoks! I think there are a lot of people who like the Ewoks, but are scared to admit it… because they think this “emasculates” them.

-A.R.Yngve
http://yngve.bravehost.com

On 07 May 2005 (09:35 PM),
Darth Joe said:

I read the article, and found that I agreed 100% :-( :-( :-(
The prequels…..well….Sucked. “From a certain point of view.” OK, they weren’t good stories, but I like seeing how Anakin became my hero. I believe that is the 1 saving grace….the 1 thing everyone wants to see….unless George screws that up too….
I can forgive him IF he apologizez to the public for these blunders and uses the profits to correct the mistakes….basically rewrite the series. But after reading parts of the script for Revenge of the Sith, I think the Force has left him, and the midi-chlorians are cutting off circulation. Characters need to be rethought for who they are…scenes need to be reshot to make sense…Yoda needs to continue to have Intelligent, Wise things to say, not just Yoda-ish. Everyone remembers “Try not; do or do not; there is no try” How many people are going to quote “Around the survivors a parameter create”??
The Jedi and the Sith BOTH need to be mysterious… that is the way of things; the way of the force.
Mabe the Midi-Chlorians can be a RESULT of access to the force, as if they depend on it for survival rather than the source of the force.
Mabe someone should create Star Wars X.
But then, mabe we should let a terminal dog die.

On 08 May 2005 (07:48 PM),
John C. Welch said:

If they wanted to keep Luke hidden, they should have changed his name to match Owen and Beru’s last name…Lars

But they did the aunt & uncle thing, so that was at least sensible.

The problem is, Lucas backed his ass into a corner with 4-6, and he’s just not good enough to handle it without being lame.

there is one essential store arc in the first 6 films…Vader’s. If the films succeed or fail it’s on the strength of that. 4-6 created a damned good villain. I mean, he tortures Han in “Empire” because he CAN. Probably because he’s trying to sucker Luke to the city.

When Vader picks up the head of Threepio, there’s a long pause there that’s never explained until the first movie. That was great.

The 4-6 Vader/Anakin was Miltonian. The 1-3 Anakin/Vader is Spearsian. There’s just nothing in 1-3 that makes you give a rat’s ass about Anakin. He’s a whiner. Hell, when I read the book where Obi-Wan finally accepts that his former student’s a jackass, he just lays the beatdown on him, and I was almost cheering.

Then in the same book, when Palpatine finds him, you realize that Vader’s a Jedi Loser because he’s got no skin. What the hell? The Force comes from your soul, but you need hands? GAHHHHHHH!!!! WHY IS THAT EVEN IN THERE? When the force goes from “The thing that binds the universe” to “A side effect of bad water, and it’s not for crips” then it goes from cool to sucks.

But at the same time, i was crying over what Lucas had done to vader. He’s small now. He’s not the embodiment of tragedy and evil. He’s just a jock who Peaked in a pod race. I was crying because never again would I be able to watch 4-6 and be as impressed by Vader. that scene in 4, early on where he’s pointing his finger at Leia? I’ll always hear, “DON’T YOU SASS YOUR FATHER LITTLE GOIL”. When he tells Luke in 6 “Now his failure is complete” I’ll be hearing “1 PWN3D K3N0B1!!!”

Lucas took Vader and made him into less that what he was, and for that, I’ll never forgive him. I haven’t paid to see a star wars movie since “Jedi” was in the theatres. I have the original series on tape. I imagine I’ll dump it to DVD. It’s wonderful, warts and all.

The new series? It’s like everything else created for the sake of technology…dead by the time you get it.

john

On 17 May 2005 (08:52 PM),
[CLONE] 1147 said:

I agree with you completely about what you had said about recapturing that original feel that isn’t a product of whoring the CGI. I thought a movie version of Jedi Outcast would be wonderful if it stayed as true to the game as it did to the star wars universe. If you haven’t played the KOTORS yet, we highly recommend them. Didn’t think I’d like them since I was never really into star wars or RPGs, but if you have already played through them you’d know what I mean.

On 20 May 2005 (12:12 PM),
Davey said:

One small point that no-one seems to have picked up on about Luke’s adoption.

Luke was living with his (step) Uncle Owen (Lars) in his Granny’s(/step-Grandpa’s) house.

Uncle Owen features in EpII as the son of the guy who maries Anakin’s mum (dunno his name – was in a wheelchair… . ..without any wheels, so just a chair really).

So Anakin actually meets the guy who ends up looking after his son whilst looking for/finding his missing mother and then burries her body outside the house where Luke will spend his youth.

All in all, not the best hiding place. Probably a good job Vader was off killing some Jedi, then some rebels throttling English blokes in Nazi uniforms and blowing up some stuff (you know, planets and that).

Also I’m not even sure (from memory) how/when Vader figures out he has a son. The name’d probably twig it for him if he heard there was a Skywalker out there causing a bit of a stink for the empire. (I’m pretty sure it is in the original films but I’d appreciate a reminder!)

Cheers.
Davey.

On 20 May 2005 (12:15 PM),
Davey said:

One small point that no-one seems to have picked up on about Luke’s adoption.

Luke was living with his (step) Uncle Owen (Lars) in his Granny’s(/step-Grandpa’s) house.

Uncle Owen features in EpII as the son of the guy who maries Anakin’s mum (dunno his name – was in a wheelchair… . ..without any wheels, so just a chair really).

So Anakin actually meets the guy who ends up looking after his son whilst looking for/finding his missing mother and then burries her body outside the house where Luke will spend his youth.

All in all, not the best hiding place. Probably a good job Vader was off killing some Jedi, then some rebels throttling English blokes in Nazi uniforms and blowing up some stuff (you know, planets and that).

Also I’m not even sure (from memory) how/when Vader figures out he has a son. The name’d probably twig it for him if he heard there was a Skywalker out there causing a bit of a stink for the empire. (I’m pretty sure it is in the original films but I’d appreciate a reminder!)

Cheers.
Davey.

On 20 May 2005 (12:53 PM),
Davey said:

D’Oh! Sorry for the double post, the page froze during submission.

I agree about the feel of Jedi Outcast.
It was the a game in a series that went all the way back to Dark Forces, then Jedi Knight, Jedi Outcast and then Jedi Academy.

Dark Forces was great! All the levels were well designed, it played well, it definately had the original Star Wars feel (minus the Lightsabers – more Rebel Aliance than Jedi Council), though the graphics are v.dated, but not without a good deal of atmosphere.
At the time the story seemed a bit detached from the Films by the end. Not to give too much away in case anyone likes retro-gaming, it seems pretty well tied in now, with the fighting droidy stuff in the prequels and the Fett’s depply rooted Imperial connections.

Jedi Knight again had great levels, more weapons, Lightsabers, great (though pretty dumb) enemies and the force. there was a pre-destiny theme which was ffamiliar from the films. Jedi Outcast brought better gameplay letting you control the Lightsabre, properly – (like “Severence”(only RPG game I could ever get into) but better), though the level design fell down a bit for me. The last one was pretty similar to Outcast though.

Anyway, relevance?
I rekon these games held true to the feel of the original films – far more so than EpI/II though I’m holding out hope that EpIII will fulfill its purpose – stepping the void.

On 20 May 2005 (08:43 PM),
Sai said:

You know I think you’ve made some really great points. I may have been introduced to Star Wars via VHS tapes by my parents, seeing I was only born the year Return of the Jedi came out, but I still had sense enough to know the new Star Wars feels nothing like the old Star Wars. So far all I’ve been able to describe it as is “it doesn’t have the same ambience”.

But what you’ve said makes alot of sense. How this vast galaxy seems a whole heck of alot smaller in the new Star Wars. How everyone is suddenly so important. I didn’t really relate to the characters in the new movies, I can barely remember most of their names. I can remember who Luke is. Who Obi-wan is. Who Yoda is. Who Leia and Han and Lando and Jabba the Hut are. But it took me a while to even connect the fact that Queen Amidala’s name is Padme. Maybe I was just too distracted by the poor acting, poor plot contruct and Unnesessary CGI, but I could barely follow episodes 1 and 2 at all. As for 3, I think I’ll wait to rent it at Blockbuster some rainy day.

And really, I don’t like to knock CGI that much, I’ve come to appreciate what computers can do for art and film over the years, but I have noticed far too much emphasis/reliance on them. There does seem to be far too much of an air of “hey look it this!” and “check out our nifty graphics!” and “look how we can make this alien blink almost realistically!” in the new films. It’s really annoying. And having grown up with the rapid development of video games and even Dinsey integrating computers into films this stuff tends to wear on me pretty quickly.

Though I have to admit when I was younger and the Star Wars Special Edition came to thearters it left me giddy. But even then a few extra aliens in a scene didn’t change the plot.

Unfortuneately, the prequels COULD have been really great. They really could have been a Star Wars for a new generation, for my generation, but apparently George Lucas has grossly understimated what appeals to my generation in an almost insulting manner.

On 20 May 2005 (08:45 PM),
J.D. said:

I should note that I just saw Revenge of the Sith. I didn’t hate it nearly as much as I hated the first two prequels. In fact, I kind of liked it. My thoughts are here.

On 22 May 2005 (07:49 PM),
D said:

Just saw Episode III. Truthfully, it’s the biggest sci-fi disaster since Episode II. A real eye-sore, it hardly classifies as a “movie” in my book. Lucas has no story to tell–only poorly concieved computer effects to play with in his Imperial Light & Magic studio.

George Lucas should be grounded from his computer.

On 23 May 2005 (05:00 PM),
TBRWolf70 said:

I have to say I agree with all of the postings on this site….although I have some disagreements with some of the things said. I seen 3 on opening night and I have to say Lucas messed up again. I don’t know exactly what George was thinking when he made these (last or first depends on how you look at it), 3 films. Episode 3 was filled with a lot of non direction. The film seemed to me to be jumping around a lot. I read the book before the movie came out and there is a lot in the book that is not brought out in the movie. The only quality that even remotely saves this film is the fact that they somewhat show the conversion of Darth Vader. I do believe that the movie went way to fast with anakins conversion to vader and that it didn’t really say why he so easily converted. The CGI in this film was way to much and almost ruined the film. I have been a star wars fan from the begining and loved the first three. I lived star wars as a child and now that these last three came out I am almost shamed to be called a star wars fan. I don’t know what made lucas think that humor had a place in the films but I think that was a BIG mistake. Jar Jar totally ruined a film for me that I had been waiting to see for years. When Lucas stated that he was waiting for computers to get to the point so that he could do with the films what he needed I didn’t know he couldn’t wait to totally destroy the flavor and style of the films the way he did. I could continue to rant about this for hours but I will spare you unlike lucas did to us. I think lucas fell out of love with the movies or just got tired of making them and just wanted to get the story told so that his fans would leave him alone. At least this is how I feel. There is a rumor that Lucas’ son is going to do 7-9, I hope this is true and I hope he goes back to the original style of the movies and does not ruin them like his father did.

Thank you for your time,
TBRWolf70

On 25 May 2005 (09:38 PM),
Cepo said:

if we just pretend they’re a whole different set of movies, then perhaps after George Lucas is dead someone will remake the prequels. :P

On 25 May 2005 (09:55 PM),
D said:

I’d love to see special editions of all three prequels that introduce real characters on real sets delivering real dialogue with lucid action scenes and coherent plotlines.

On 26 May 2005 (09:13 AM),
DAKMOR said:

Firts,I must point out that I did not read any books,scripts,or commentaries on any of the Star Wars films. Second,I must say that I enjoyed them,although most of this stuff you guys are saying does change it a lot. Third, I do beleive that Lucas never really understood what he was writing. I bet that if he could redo the “original” series,he’s would have two actors in the whole thing. The guy playing Luke,and the guy playing Obi-wan. The rest,CGI.

Lucas’ idea of Star Wars and ours are too very different things. Think,LOTR and and old robin hood movie. Lucas is LOTR,and ours is robin hood. that big of a difference.

His marketing license is really what made him keep making the dang movies. Without absolute millions coming in from toys,this fat cat(not from washignton hough) is just out to get money!

On 27 May 2005 (07:18 AM),
Shinzon said:

I agree with this great article. I loved Episode III BUT I cant love it entirely like the first one (episode IV). I fell asleep in episodes I and II because they were too long, but I liked it cause it had all of those space ship and army fights.

But yes, there is soemthing akward in the prequels. I had no problem with Luke working his way to becoem a Jedi. But in Anakins case, I just didint buy it, it was too aristocratic, I mean after all Anakin is the center of the galaxy in the prequles, that would fit with george Lucas becoming a multimillonaire praised and worshiped, probably went to his head and reflected it. I just didnt buy the whol “anakin is the god of the galaxy” thing, its unreal and imposible, life never works that way to such an extreme. Trule Lucas head is too big so he reflected it on Anakin.

A New Hope is better.

On 10 June 2005 (10:41 PM),
Clayton said:

Wonderful article on all levels. I’m only writing to say ‘Eureka’ in regards to your comments on the relationship of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon to Star Wars. I have never met anyone else who thought the same and here you are expounding upon what i’ve always thought as well! The only thing I can recommend to someone so apparently in the know is that you read Milton’s Paradise Lost for the true story of Vader that LucAss never told us becuase he has been so busy wacking off with CGI (And since he is just merely a hack in the first place)

Peace.

On 14 June 2005 (09:10 AM),
Jack Sargent said:

In short, Episode II is a terrible movie. The acting, special effects and dialogue are not only poor, but un-engaging. The action sequences are tedious and un-involving, and the love scenes are laughable. This film has no redeeming features. It is worse than Episode I!
The worst scene has to be the one in the droid factory (it looks and feels like something from a video game).
George Lucas and Jonathan Hales’ screenplay for this film is appalling too.

On 19 June 2005 (06:57 PM),
I want George Lucas’ head on a platter said:

While I agree with most everything said on this site, I feel that most people missed a really important complaint and it is one of the reasons I really feel ripped off by the first trilogy. For one, in a universe that’s so vast and interesting, there is wayyyyy to much coincidence going on. It’s like the whole story is based on a few influential families. Such coincidences not only make the universe seem immeasurably small, but also takes the great library of Star Wars literature and throws it in the garbage. This brings me to my second point. While George Lucas may not owe his fans anything, he certainly owes the people that worked hard explaining the technology and filling the plot-holes in the original series. One small example of this is the astromech droid Obi-Wan has for his ship in EpisodeII. He refers to the droid as ‘R4’, which isn’t that big of a deal until you go and buy the book on droids which explains that the first part of an astromech’s serial isn’t different for every astromech (like people’s first names) but explains the type of model the astromech is i.e. there are several thousands of R2’s but only one that’s called R2-D2. According to the book (which George recieved a paycheck for) the R4 model is one of the newer models that does look similar to an R2 unit, but has a clear dome. Some people may think this nitt-picky, but since George Lucas did recieve a paycheck for that book, he could at least crack a copy open before he took his big dump on the universe that so many other more talented authors were able to keep to a timeline that takes everyone’s work into consideration and builds off a world that has become so much more diverse than anything George Lucas could have done himself.

Sorry, got a little long-winded there. The real reason I even posted here is this question: On the May 8th post of John C. Welsh posted that there is a scene in one of the movies (he doesn’t say which) where Vader picks up threepio’s head and there is a long pause or some such. Could anyone tell me in what version of what movie this scene is in? I’ve seen all the movies multiple times and I can never even remember Vader sharing a scene with either of the droids. And one more point, just because they never shared a scene doesn’t give the excuse for having them in episodes 1-3 (just one of those huge galactic coincidences that helps ruin episodes one-three).

On 19 June 2005 (06:58 PM),
I want George Lucas’ head on a platter said:

While I agree with most everything said on this site, I feel that most people missed a really important complaint and it is one of the reasons I really feel ripped off by the first trilogy. For one, in a universe that’s so vast and interesting, there is wayyyyy to much coincidence going on. It’s like the whole story is based on a few influential families. Such coincidences not only make the universe seem immeasurably small, but also takes the great library of Star Wars literature and throws it in the garbage. This brings me to my second point. While George Lucas may not owe his fans anything, he certainly owes the people that worked hard explaining the technology and filling the plot-holes in the original series. One small example of this is the astromech droid Obi-Wan has for his ship in EpisodeII. He refers to the droid as ‘R4’, which isn’t that big of a deal until you go and buy the book on droids which explains that the first part of an astromech’s serial isn’t different for every astromech (like people’s first names) but explains the type of model the astromech is i.e. there are several thousands of R2’s but only one that’s called R2-D2. According to the book (which George recieved a paycheck for) the R4 model is one of the newer models that does look similar to an R2 unit, but has a clear dome. Some people may think this nitt-picky, but since George Lucas did recieve a paycheck for that book, he could at least crack a copy open before he took his big dump on the universe that so many other more talented authors were able to keep to a timeline that takes everyone’s work into consideration and builds off a world that has become so much more diverse than anything George Lucas could have done himself.

Sorry, got a little long-winded there. The real reason I even posted here is this question: On the May 8th post of John C. Welsh posted that there is a scene in one of the movies (he doesn’t say which) where Vader picks up threepio’s head and there is a long pause or some such. Could anyone tell me in what version of what movie this scene is in? I’ve seen all the movies multiple times and I can never even remember Vader sharing a scene with either of the droids. And one more point, just because they never shared a scene doesn’t give the excuse for having them in episodes 1-3 (just one of those huge galactic coincidences that helps ruin episodes one-three).

On 20 June 2005 (06:22 AM),
dowingba said:

“I want George Lucas’ head on a platter”,

In Episode 4, Luke and his uncle buy a weird looking red astromech droid that looks nothing like R2-D2 from the jawas, but soon afterwards it malfunctions and smoke begins emitting from it. “Uncle Owen, this R2 unit has a bad motivator!” says Luke.

On 25 June 2005 (10:11 PM),
Jeff said:

New Jedi Order, New Jedi Order, New Jedi Order, New Jedi Order!

In case you’re wondering what I’m ranting about … it’s the 13-or-so book series that ended a couple years ago that truly reminded me how much I love the Star Wars saga. Yes, the prequels have been a dissapointment … which is why I have immersed myself in the Expanded Universe and all but ignored everything before “A New Hope”. Yes, I’m a huge Star Wars fan and definitly a Star Wars geek … but the books really are where it’s at now.

On 01 July 2005 (11:43 AM),
jd said:

you must be the most stupidest peices of s**t on the planet, how can you not like star wars are you lot stupid.

On 08 August 2005 (04:01 AM),
Chris Laughlin said:

Thank you so much! This is a fantastic analysis of why the new Star Wars movies suck so badly that they make baby Jesus cry. Damnit I hate these new movies!

Chris

On 14 August 2005 (12:42 AM),
Stinky said:

“I’d rather have the hocus-pocus religion, and so would you.”

-good one

On 24 August 2005 (08:41 PM),
JT said:

Thank you so much. I thought I was the only one to think this movie series was suckville.

On 28 August 2005 (09:42 PM),
alien said:

Phantom menace, Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith� ALL SUCK. Not because they have �Computer Graphics� or that their �New�. No,� simply because they SUCK AS FILMS! They suck because Lucas could not sell them as workable ideas 30 years ago and as a consequence started the series at EPISODE 4. I mean why would you start at episode 4 why? What�s the logic? Yes the prequels have a story on which they are based but what most people fail to observe is that the films lack the most obvious thing that all good movies have. DRAMA! How do you support a film that is carelessly littered with inane details and has absolutely no emotional draw to the characters?

But don�t blame Lucas I�m sure he wanted to make the prequels into epic films but what has happened is that industry is not the same anymore. The talent pool around him is not the same either. The Seventies and Eighties had incredible designers like Syd Mead who did the set and vehicle designs for the early films and Blade Runner. Now you basiclly have groups of CG jocks that incestuously copy each other and compete for recognition among the studios.

What�s also sad is that when you become rich and powerful and the people that work for you are dying for your approval it does not foster a healthy environment for creativity or new ideas. I think Lucas should never have revisited his old ideas because they were just not good enough to make the cut. I suppose when you are close to being a Billionaire and the public looks at you with envy or as a living god then this must encourage you to believe that even the ideas that you abandoned 30 years ago were secret gems yet to be discovered.

People should recognize that many incredibly talented people collaborated with Lucas to make Star Wars what it became. If you read Star Wars as just a script�. God almighty�. that could have easily become an incredibly bad seventies Sci-fi flick. Yet that�s not happened, Star Wars became the most significant SCI-FI film of the Twentieth Century! HELLO!!! Does this register with those arguing about Astromech droids! Can you grasp the magnitude of what Star Wars was and what it has now become? Probably not�Honestly if you were not alive to see Star Wars during the 70�s and 80�s you just don�t get it and you never will understand the magic of that time. I grew up on a farm and as a kid when I saw that Star Destroyer rumble overhead I sat with my mouth gaping wide in disbelief�.As �JD� so poetically pointed out�.. It was truly a time of wonder.

So let�s talk about supposedly hating the �New� and hating CG? . . What�s that about? As an original Stat Wars fan I resent this remark because it is a sweeping generalization and a polite way to call someone �old�� Yet the question in my mind is why prequel fans love these movies when they appear to be so heavily vested towards children and not adults? Honestly it�s a real drag for anyone with any taste or capacity for good film to sit through these so called movies.

To be blunt, many Star Wars fans would have slept outside theatres just to see any film related to the Star Wars Legend. Really, . . . I mean it. Lucas could have taken a shit on a plate, pointed a camera at it and released it as “The Phantom Menace” and maybe some people would have gone to see it twice. So my question is? If you are George Lucas and you can do anything…..I mean anything….Money is not an issue, selling the movie is not an issue and getting creative talent to work with you is not an issue ….Then why not make a film for Adults? Why not keep the aura of the original films and do something innovative and epic�If the Star Wars movies were better films they would have easily overtaken the success of Titanic in earnings?

I think most original Star Wars Fans have remained SCI-FI fans and I personally loved A.I., Minority Report, and The Incredibles. How much more CG do you want me to like? The Incredibles was all CG but it had effects and characters that were highly memorable. As for ep1, ep2 and ep3 � No one will remember these effects because they sucked at delivering an idea and that�s because the prequels have no tangible feeling or idea to deliver� �NOTHING�� just a list of detailed inane Star Wars babble. The original Star Wars films always blew us away when we saw the effects! To this day, I still get goose bumps when I watch the rebel soldier look through his binoculars to see those gigantic Imperial Walkers lumbering towards them on the ice planet Hoth. This �effects shot� created drama, because you felt sympathy for those poor souls who faced certain death defending themselves against such terrible machines of war.

Nobody wants to watch a two hour Star Wars trivial pursuit with convoluted land battles between CG cartoon characters? Didn�t Lucas see Braveheart? . . . What if the battles in that film were hundreds of instances of 3D Scotsmen fighting the 3d English army, all with a predictable randomness? How boring would that be?

How about the �New�? When I saw the Lord of the Rings in the theatre that scene with the Balrog blew me away! What an incredible effect, the flames, the textures, the heat distorting the air as it roared and lastly the haunting chants and music of the Balrog. That is cinema, that is genius and sadly it did not come from the Skywalker Ranch and for my friend that loves the appendices of books don�t confuse Tolkien with Lucas they are not equals� not even close.

I think many Star Wars fans are living in denial. Most of them can�t admit that the prequels failed at the most basic level as films and what�s even worse is that these films denigrated the original Star Wars Myth. They can�t come to terms with this simply because �this is it��like it or not there will be no alternative to this cinematic suck fest in triplicate.
Yet I think the future holds even darker things for Star Wars fans�As Hollywood has been consistently reinventing old movies because they just can�t take a chance on any new ideas. Soon the time will come when they recreate episodes 4, 5 and 6 to match the crappiness of the prequels.

Maybe they will get Vin Diesal to play Han Solo? God Help us……

On 06 September 2005 (10:35 AM),
Devil’s Advocate said:

On 19 June 2005 (06:58 PM), I want George Lucas’ head on a platter said:

“It’s like the whole story is based on a few influential families.”

Ever heard of the Kennedys? Or the Bushs?

On 01 October 2005 (07:35 PM),
Jake said:

i completely disagree with you :(

Patronus

For most people, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban — the third Harry Potter book — is their favorite. It’s the last of the books in the series to be tightly written (and edited), but the first to really explore its themes in a complex manner. And the climax is marvelous.

I didn’t really care for the first two Harry Potter films (though we had fun attending the second film in costume); I found them loud and garish and, well, annoying.

I’m happy to report that the third film adaptation is a refreshing change. The overall presentation is darker — the visuals and the sets, I mean. There’s more of an emphasis on character and story and less of an emphasis on gee-whiz special effects (though Buckbeak the hippogriff is amazing, the best CGI character I’ve seen yet: on a par with Gollum). There’s far, far less Quidditch, and no mention at all of the House Cup. This is the best film of the three so far, just as the third book is the best in the series.

In fact, from its middle, this film is nearly perfect. And it’s nearly a perfect adaptation. I actually had tears in my eyes as I watched my favorite scenes unfold, scenes I’d imagined in my mind for years, scenes created on screen in pitch perfect accuracy (unlike Peter Jackson’s mutilation of The Lord of the Rings).

My favorite part of the book/film is when Harry learns (and then uses) the Patronus charm. The Patronus is designed to ward the Dementors, the terrifying guards of Azkaban, the wizarding prison. Dementors suck joy, happiness, and hope — and eventually the soul — from their victims. They’ve caused trouble for Harry, and he wants a way to protect himself.

A wizard creates a Patronus by concentrating on the happiest moment of his life. This strong, positive emotion wards him from the despair and hopelessness represented by the Dementors.

How would my Patronus manifest itself? Which moment in my life was happiest?


In many ways, I feel as if Kris and I are trying to recreate happy moments from our childhood with this new home. If we follow our plan, the downstairs living area will feel very much like your grandparents’ house might have thirty years ago.

The furniture and painting Kris received when her grandmother died will be featured prominently around the house. We recently purchased a kitchen stool exactly like the one in my grandparents’ kitchen (only ours is yellow and theirs was pink); we have a heavy black rotary-dial telephone like my grandparents had; we’ll be hanging mirrors on the walls — as the current owners have — and one of the mirrors is one that hung on my parents’ bedroom wall when I was growing up; and so on.

I can’t keep away from the new house. I drive past it whenever I travel to or from Portland (which I’ve done several times this past week). Yesterday, before the movie, we stopped for a visit. The annual neighborhood garage sale was in progress, so we were able to see the stuff John and Mary Jo (and Gerry) don’t plan to keep.

“Hey!” I said, pointing at an old leather-covered chair. “They’re selling my chair.” When we first toured the house, I fell in love with this chair, which had been sitting in the kitchen. It’s old, and a bit rickety, but it’s comfortable (and comforting). I had wanted to write the chair into our offer, but Kris and Mary argued that it would be too frivolous.

“You want that chair?” asked Mary Jo, disbelieving. She laughed. “That’s Gerry’s chair. He loves it, too.” (Gerry is her housemate.)

Gerry appeared, beaming. “The chair is $25, but for you it’s only $20,” he said. I thanked him, paid him, and then carried the chair back to its proper spot in the kitchen.

“Do you want this old end table?” Mary Jo asked when we’d gone back out to the garage sale. “It’s forty years old. It was my mother’s. She loved it. I hate to sell it, but we don’t have a place for it.”

“Sure,” I said. “We can use that.” And so I carried the coffee table back into the living room.

The current owners have a long Davenport in the front room. Though it’s large and its form is fine, it’s rather ugly.

“Do you want this Davenport, too?” Mary Jo asked. We did not.

But, in a way, I did. My grandfather had a long, ugly Davenport, too: a mauve-colored beauty with a flowery pattern etched in the fabric. (The fabric was very firm, so that if you slept on it, the pattern would be etched in your cheeks). Every day, after a lunch of Campbell’s bean with bacon soup, grandpa would sleep on the Davenport for fifteen minutes to half an hour. Then he’d rise suddenly, get to his feet, and say, “Well, time to get back to work.” And then he’d go out to his garden or his cows or his woods.

Things from our childhood are comforting, are they not?


I really like the house’s current owners. They seem like good people.

Comments


On 05 June 2004 (11:18 AM),
Ron said:

I had some bean and bacon soup this week because it reminded me of grandpa’s house. I hadn’t had any in years. Its still one of my favorite soups. I have a picture of my mom and dad on that couch holding me as a baby.



On 05 June 2004 (11:39 AM),
J.D. Roth said:

I eat Campbell’s bean-with-bacon soup on a regular basis. It’s one of my comfort foods. And it’s all because of grandpa. (Actually, I’m fixing a can for lunch right now.)

In fairness to my extended family, I should admit we recently had a converation about grandpa’s naps on the top-secret Roth family forum (past excerpts from the forum, and a cast of characters, here). Here are some highlights:

J.D.: So I was reading and article in Prevention Magazine about sleep and sleep disorders, and one of the points that they made was that a short nap every day is very beneficial and that more American businesses should allow time for their employees to nap. (I guess they must mean more than zero.) This got me to thinking of Grandpa and his naps, so I shared my memories with Kris. She wondered if he had always napped, or whether that only happened when he was older. Viriginia? Did Noah nap when you were a kid? And when were his naps? I seem to recall them coming after a hearty lunch of bean with bacon soup, but I could be mistaken. Anyone? Any memories of Grandpa’s naps?

Tammy: Yeh, he’d often sit in the corner of that pink couch right by the old radio and snore loudly.

Virginia: Years ago there was a wood cook stove in the area where your mom’s breakfast nook is. The nook part is now in what used to be the bedroom walk in closet. (Hmmmmm, I wonder if anyone else had a walkin closet in them days) The refrigerator sit in what used to be the pantry, so I guess the nook takes up part of that, too. There was a space between the stove and the wall. Dad would lay down in that space everyday right after lunch for a short nap. One day I decided to crawl back there after he was done with his nap. I had a box on my head (don’t ask me why) and I crawled on the floor behind the stove. When I got ready to come out I stood up. Well, it so happened that mom had a kettle of soup on the stove and the handle was sticking out over the edge and the box hit the handle and the handle spun around and tipped over the soup, and the soup hit the floor, the soup was hot and I bawled and Dad came to my rescue and poured cold water on me and till it was all said and done there was a big mess which I’m sure my Mom enjoyed cleanig up. :-( Dad’s naps only lasted about 10 – 15 minutes. Sometimes shorter, The ones in church seem to last longer.

Gwen: Mom, I never heard that cute story! I remember Grandpa saying “well, I had a good nap”. It was totally amazing to me as he had been sitting upright in the car, while Grandma was shopping. I have inherited that ability, and for the most part I am glad, In church it is unhandy, but I find that if I quit fighting and go ahead a doze a bit, I often wake refreshed and can stay awake the rest of the service. If I fight and fight, I have to keep on fighting and it is terrible. Henry envies my ability to lie down on the recliner with the children all around and sleep 20 minutes. But the children laugh at me when I fall asleep in the middle of a spelling test, or doing oral reading class. Did Grandpa have that problem, too. I mean, besides church, did he fall asleep when he sat still? It is especially in the forenoon that I have that problem.

Sue: I remember Steve telling me about his dad’s ability to just drop off for 20 minutes and then wake up suddenly and go back out to work. I am assuming that this took place after his lunch but I’m not sure — you all have better memories of what happened than I do of what Steve said. I have often envied his dad’s ability to nap like that. I very rarely nap, and when I do, sure as shooting I have a cat on me trying to make itself comfortable (I am being vague about the sex here because it could be either Stevie — a female — or Chester or even, if he’s in the house, Silver).

Tammy: I seem to have inherited grandpas short naps. I often lie down in the afternoon and get up in fifteen minutes totally recharged. If I sleep longer I feel headachy and groggy all day!

Virginia: I also remember another story about that old stove. On Saturday night there would be a big wash tub filled with water and that is where we took our Saturday night baths. On this certain evenng the electricity went off after the tub was filled, and before anyone was in it. We were all told to stay in the dinning room while Dad went and checked the electric box. I was scared so I followed him. The rest of the story is all wet. Also it is on this stove that I learned to bake. I would wait tlll Mom went over to clean the church and then I knew I had plenty of time to make cookies. I learned just how much wood to put in to hold the fire at just the right temperature. The only thing I didn’t know… One time I put too many eggs in the cookie dough and at that time I didn’t know about doubling a recipe so I threw the dough out and started over.

Ron: I remember Grandpa’s naps. It seemed to take him about 2 breaths before he was asleep and then he would wake up with a snort and sit up and go to work. I also remember looking across the church at Zion and seeing him sleeping. I tell Eileen I am just following the behavior modeled for me by my ancestors at church.

I love the top-secret Roth family forum. :)



On 05 June 2004 (11:42 AM),
Lisa said:

Oooh. That stool is cool. I think that Albert wants it.



On 05 June 2004 (06:21 PM),
tammy said:

I had totally forgotten about that pink metal chair of grandmas. I put some tributes to my heritage aroudn myhosue too. My craft room is bordered in faceless Amish dolls in a nod to my roots. The guest room is filled with things from Gregs side of the family; a trunk that came over to Ellis Island with his family when they immmigrated from Poland, his baby pictures, a huge painting of an iris that his sister made, antique picture frames from his mother and a quilt hanger with old quilts that his aunts and mother quilted through the years.

In Gregs den is a balck and white framed wall hanging of the boat his dad worked served on in the war. I love old things that tell a story. By the way that trunk in the guest room has it’s lock broken. Seems they somehow lost the key on the voyage and so immigration officers forced it open. Gregs mom thought I might want to get it fixed. Why? It’s all part of the story.



On 05 June 2004 (09:01 PM),
Anthony said:

I love the idea of you returning furniture right back into the house whence it came. I also think your plans for the house sound splendid.

Why do we love old things? Why in a culture marked by a compulsive desire for the newest and best do we still find ourselves drawn toward things, outdated relics, that remind us of the past?



On 06 June 2004 (07:17 AM),
gwen said:

Mom fell heir to that ugly couch. I’m sure she had it until she moved to Idaho. Perhaps it could still be traced.;^) Are you going to have a sterio console instead of an entertainment center?
We found a beautiful one at an auction for 40.00 when we got married, but 10 years later we couln’t get a nibble on it a yard sale, and ended up burning it. I always felt kinda bad about that.



On 06 June 2004 (09:44 AM),
dowingba said:

Every time you mention the LOTR films, you get more and more viscious about it. Now they’re a “mutilation”? Come on, how many Academy Awards have the Harry Potter films won? And by the way, they really shouldn’t be compared, since LOTR was written by a true linguistic genius half a century ago (and it took him about 20 years to write), while Harry Potter books are churned out one per week it seems, just riding the perpetual wave of fantasy popularization that was started solely by Tolkien.

Okay, I was disappointed with The Two Towers adaptation (and that was my favourite of the books, too), but ROTK is a pretty damn good adaptation, you’ve got to admit that. I haven’t seen a more perfect page-to-screen rendering of any story, ever. Of course, I haven’t seen or read the latest Harry Potter book/movie. Nor will I.



On 06 June 2004 (10:18 AM),
J.D. said:

Dowingba makes some fair charges against your humble narrator.

Every time you mention the LOTR films, you get more and more viscious about it. Now they’re a “mutilation”?

Fair enough. I deserved to be called out for this. Let me explain my current feelings.

When I first heard about these films, and saw the initial production stills, etc., I was worried about the potential problems.

Then I saw Fellowship. Though I wasn’t blown away by the film, I liked it. I thought the cave troll scene and the insanely long final battle were the only real blemishes. And then when I saw the extended version of Fellowship on DVD, I loved it. I could forgive the twenty-minute final battle because the rest of the film was so good in its extended version.

Then I saw Peter Jackson’s Helms Deep. You all know how I feel about that. To say I was disappointed is an understatement. It’s not fair to say that it’s a bad film — it’s merely average (or, actually, a little below) — but it certainly did not live up to my lofty expectations. And the extended version didn’t help this time.

When I first saw Return of the King, I had mixed emotions. There were some great scenes, yes, but the film was marred by too many scenes of overwrought emotion from Sam and Frodo, but too much glossing, and by a tedious extended denoument. It’s only with time that I’ve really come to realize how much I disliked the third installment. It’s not as bad as Peter Jackson’s Helms Deep, and it’s still an above average film, but again: I was disappointed, and sometimes “failure to live up to expectations” can, in a person’s mind, be a worse sin than actually being “a film of poor quality”.

To compound the problem, the Rings films were the subject of relentless hype for over two years. There’s only so much hype I can stand before I sour on something, even if it’s something that I’m predisposed to like, you know? I’ve read The Lord of the Rings a couple dozen times in my life, and I love it. But that doesn’t mean that I’m willing to endure two years of being told how awesome a trio of mediocre films are.

To summarize: I love the books, and always will. I find the films mediocre (though I do quite like the first, especially in its extended version). They failed to live up to my expectations, though, and that makes me bitter. This bitterness is compounded by the relentless hype around these films that exists even now.

Come on, how many Academy Awards have the Harry Potter
films won?

I have no idea. But you know how I feel about the modern state of the Academy Awards, right? Are you really saying that you can believe they’re a true indicator of quality? Titanic over L.A. Confidential? Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan? Gladiator over Crouching Tiger? A Beautiful Mind over anything? Please.

And by the way, they really shouldn’t be compared, since LOTR was
written by a true linguistic genius half a century ago (and it took him about
20 years to write), while Harry Potter books are churned out one per week it seems,
just riding the perpetual wave of fantasy popularization that was started solely by
Tolkien.

You’re right that comparing the two worlds is like comparing apples and oranges, but it’s perfectly possible to have a good apple and a good orange. And besides, I’m not comparing the books, I’m comparing the films. (It’s no secret that I’m not a fan of Rowling’s stylistic ability. She’s no master of the craft. (In fact, the last two books have been pretty poorly written and poorly edited.)) And, to my mind, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is the best of the combined six Harry Potter and Rings films. That’s my opinion. (The second Harry Potter film is the worst of the six, even worse than Peter Jackson’s Helms Deep.)

ROTK is a pretty damn good adaptation, you’ve got to admit
that. I haven’t seen a more perfect page-to-screen rendering of any story, ever.

The Princess Bride was pretty damn faithful to the book, IMHO. Also, To Kill a Mockingbird. Actually, I can think of many better adaptations than ROTK. Just saying.

I know you love the Rings films, and I respect that, but they just didn’t do it for me. And I realize that the rest of the world agrees with you and disagrees with me. That doesn’t mean that you’re all right and I’m wrong. It just means we have different opinions. :)

I’ll try to talk less smack about the LOTR films, though. It’s difficult, but I’ll try…



On 07 June 2004 (08:45 AM),
jenefer said:

jd, I was so glad you mentioned to Kill a MockingBird. I was about to mention it. My whole life my mother (Pam) felt it was the best adaptation of book to film she had ever scene. Nothing else surpassed it.

I think you hit the nail on the head with Tolkien. It is not the director’s job you hate, but your own anticipation and too firmly entrnched ideas of how the movie should have been adapted that disturb(s) you, I think. I too have read the books many times, and all the associated support books. I think the films were great given the limitations of the medium and the audience. How will your books ever make it to film if you are so critical now? Prepare yourself.



On 07 June 2004 (09:16 AM),
J.D. said:

Also, Jurassic Park was a better adaptation than ROTK, though I missed the pterodactyls from the book…

Here are other Harry Potter reviews from weblogs I read: Michael Rawdon’s Escape from Chris Columbus, Joel and Aimee’s The Boy Who Lived, and Rob Fahrni‘s brief comments.



On 07 June 2004 (11:23 AM),
Denise said:

J.D. – how can you say Jurassic Park was a better adaption? They completely changed the ending…in the book the old guy dies and is eaten by the little scavanger reptiles, whereas in the movie, he is saved with the rest of the crew.



On 07 June 2004 (11:25 AM),
Denise said:

Sorry folks – should be adaptation up there.



On 07 June 2004 (12:15 PM),
Lynn said:

Understanding that when a book is adapted to film there are going to be changes, I was still disappointed that my favorite line from HP3 was removed. It occurred at the very end of PofA when Harry went home for the summer and he informed the dreaded Dursleys that he had a godfather…and he was an escaped convict! It was a sweet moment. But, other than that, I thought the movie was great fun. I loved the themE of time and the ever-present clocks. I also really liked the added landscape and the color.



On 07 June 2004 (02:00 PM),
J.D. said:

Denise: How can you say Jurassic Park was a better adaptation? They completely changed the ending.

Peter Jackson completely changed the ending, too. He changed lots of stuff. Where’s Saramun in the third film? Where’s the scouring of the Shire? Where are Sam and Frodo falling in with the orcs? Why did he add that stupid scene with Aragorn falling off his horse and into the river? (Wait — that was the second movie, wasn’t it?) Why the emphasis on Arwen?

I think Jurassic Park was a more faithful adaptation than Return of the King



On 07 June 2004 (02:36 PM),
Denise said:

Ok – I get your point, but I still say that the old guy getting eaten at the end is much better than him getting saved. That sort of changes the whole feel of the story.



On 07 June 2004 (02:57 PM),
Joel said:

JD said: “Why the emphasis on Arwen?”

Perhaps the mighty lobbying power of the Collagen Advisory Board? Peter Jackson’s a big Aerosmith fan?

Or maybe P.J. concluded that, for the movie to work, it really needed a romantic subplot.

Similar to Cuaron’s decision to change how Peter Pettigrew was first revealed, making the moment more about Harry.

It seems we’re having a disconnect over the question of the “perfect adaptation”. Did you like the movie because it effectively captured the spirit of the books and communicated that spirit as an effective film? Or did you really like it because the “scenes [were] created on screen in pitch perfect accuracy (unlike Peter Jackson’s mutilation of The Lord of the Rings).”? The Cuaron took more liberties with the story than the previous films and clearly benefited from the resulting freedom. Peter Jackson tried to do a similar job with LotR, but it didn’t work for you. Eh?



On 07 June 2004 (05:04 PM),
Nikchick said:

JD said: “Why the emphasis on Arwen?”

I think that was a wise decision, to appeal to modern audiences who maybe are not entirely consumed with their geekish knowledge (and reverence) of the books. Tolkien was a man, and he wrote about males. The female characters in his books need modern punching up.



On 07 June 2004 (10:05 PM),
dowingba said:

J.D., film and literature are quite different mediums. Being closer to the book doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a better adaptation. Can you imagine how bad the LOTR movies would have been if they were line-for-line with the books? I, for one, am damn glad the Scouring of the Shire was ommitted from the film. And I am amazed, and thrilled, at how much dialogue was lifted directly from the books. I think the movies, and ROTK specifically, perfectly captured the spirit of the books, and that’s what counts. Of course, the books or the movies might have had a different impression in your mind.

Also, I loved Jurassic Park, but I never read the book.

Oh, and the Saruman battle is going to be in the extended edition. I hear it’s a huge 10 minute fight of some sort. I kinda liked the non-violent battle-of-words in the books, but some more Jedi-esque wizard martial arts like in the first film would suit me just fine. I hope he winds up imprisoned on the roof of Orthanc. Heh.

Mystic River

I spent half of Saturday working on Sabino’s computers. I spent the other half of the day lying on the couch, suffering from a low-grade fever of unknown origin. I played Nintendo half-heartedly. I watched home improvement shows. Mainly, I stared into space.

Today, mysterious fever mysteriously gone, I was ready for an outing: Trader Joe’s! Powell’s! A movie! Dinner at a fancy restaurant!

We stopped at Trader Joe’s first. I loathe Trader Joe’s on weekends; it’s crowded and I get frustrated with all of the traffic.

On a whim, I sampled some cheese: raclette. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but I knew instantly that I’d made a terrible mistake.

It was as if I had just eaten fresh fecal matter. Ugh. The stench! The taste! After one chew, the lump of cheese sat in my mouth, a gritty, slimy ball of crap. I looked in vain for someplace to spit it out. I decided to swallow the thing, but that only exacerbated the trouble; I gagged, could not get it down. My stomach heaved. I felt certain I was about to vomit all over the $2.99 bottles of Charles Shaw chardonnay (against which I was leaning).

At last I spied a stack of napkins on a sample table. I literally shoved a woman aside to grab a napkin. She glared at me — and rightfully so — but I didn’t care. I spat the hunk of cheese into the napkin and prayed the foul taste would leave my mouth quickly.

Later Kris told me that raclette isn’t designed to be eaten like that. “It’s a fondue cheese,” she said. Right. Everyone wants fondue that tastes like shit.


At Powell’s I spent money compulsively, picking up a Modern Library edition of Proust’s The Past Recaptured, a compilation of Dick Tracy comic strips, another Flash Gordon comic strip compilation (this one in color!) and volumes one, two, three, and eight of a Terry and the Pirates compilation. Oh — I also bought a librarian action figure to go with my Shakespeare action figure.

As we were driving away, Kris sighed. “I’m having one of those days where everyone looks familiar to me, even though I know they’re not,” she said. “Does that ever happen to you.”

“Yeah,” I said, nodding in agreement.

“Like them,” she said, pointing to a couple waiting to cross the street. Then she did a double-take. “Oh! It’s Lance and Miriam.”

Lance Shipley and his wife, Miriam, whom we had not seen in fifteen years, and now we’ve seen twice in two months (though they’ve only seen us once). We were seated behind them at the David Sedaris lecture.


I understand that many, many people love the Lord of the Rings films, especially The Return of the King. That’s fine. They’re fun films.

I have trouble, though, when people start trying to pitch them as deserving of Best Picture. I want to ask them, “Have you seen all of the other nominees? If so, what makes you think this year’s Rings film is better than this year’s other films? If you haven’t seen the other nominees, how can you argue your point?” Last year, for example, Jen at the Very Big Blog was adamant that Peter Jackson’s Helms Deep should win, but I’m not sure she ever saw any of the other nominees (although, in retrospect, last year’s crop looks pretty week except for the winner, Chicago).

This year, there’s a good chance that The Return of the King will win as some sort of reward for the entire trilogy. If some other, better, film loses because of this, that’d be a shame. I realize that film preferences, like all preferences, are subjective, but I find it difficult to believe that many people could consider The Return of the King superior to Mystic River.

Mystic River is a fine film. It has a wonderful story, a wonderful script. It is well directed (by Clint Eastwood, who also wrote the music!?!?!?!). The acting is superlative (Sean Penn, Kevin Bacon, Tim Robbins, Marcia Gay Harden, Laura Linney, Laurence Fishburne — some cast, huh?). It’s a great film. (It’s only real flaws are some patches of flubbed editing and, like The Return of the King, an over-long ending.)

For my part, I still prefer Lost in Translation, though I think Mystic River is probably, in an objective sense, a better film.

Kris suggested a great solution: award The Lord of the Rings trilogy an unprecendented honorary award of merit, recognizing the achievement. Reward the accomplishment without taking away from other potentiall more deserving single films. What do you think?

Comments

On 12 January 2004 (07:26 AM),
J.D. said:

I just read Ebert’s review; it’s very good. In particular, I like what he has to say about the acting and directing:

To see strong acting like this is exhilarating. In a time of flashy directors who slice and dice their films in a dizzy editing rhythm, it is important to remember that films can look and listen and attentively sympathize with their characters. Directors grow great by subtracting, not adding, and Eastwood does nothing for show, everything for effect.

Over the past three months I have gained a profound respect for Eastwood as a director, and have even begun to admire his acting abilities.

On 12 January 2004 (08:38 AM),
Tiffany said:

I often hunt out an award-winning movie, and I find that I am often disappointed. I am better off know very little of what others thing so that I am not �expecting� a great movie. I enjoyed �Lost� but never got to see �Mystic River�. I have always been confused how you can compare a movie like �Lost� to �Rings�. They have nothing in common, so all you can say is which one you liked better.

On 12 January 2004 (08:44 AM),
Denise said:

Having watched many a Spaghetti Western with my father when I was young, Clint Eastwood has always been one of my favorite actors. The one thing I like about Eastwood is he doesn’t try to take on roles that he cannot be convincing in.

As a director, I think he has improved and continues to do so.

I look at Eastwood as the John Wayne of our generation (and not just because they both made a lot of westerns), and will miss him when he is gone.

On 12 January 2004 (09:58 AM),
Dana said:

My taste is so eclectic that I don’t bother to pay much attention to awards or critics. And, as Tiffany says, movies can be so dissimilar, and yet in the same category, that it becomes like comparing apples and hot dogs. Just too different to be very useful of a comparison.

I think giving the LotR a collective award would be quite nice. At the same time, I think the third film also shows a certain deftness of composition that the other two were still struggling to find. I think Jackson sort of hit his stride with the material and everything in the third film. And I didn’t find the ending to be overlong at all. If anything, I thought it a bit too short…

On 12 January 2004 (10:18 AM),
mart said:

i think NO on giving them a special award. why reward such incredible mediocrity? it only encourages them to make more crap like that. i know this is horribly naive of me, but shouldn’t GREAT movies be given awards? or is an oscar just another stop on the hollywood publicity train now? oh yeah… it is and has been for a long long time.

me? i tend to cast my lot with cannes and the palme d’or, which is a real sign of filmmaking talent.

ok, ok, let peter jackson and his whole pathetic trilogy have all the oscars they want. that just means fewer people in imamura movies irritating me.

On 12 January 2004 (10:52 AM),
Kris said:

http://www.raclette-fondue.com/html/fondue.html

On 12 January 2004 (11:22 AM),
J.D. said:

Mart said: shouldn’t GREAT movies be given awards? or is an oscar just another stop on the hollywood publicity train now? oh yeah… it is and has been for a long long time.

Mart, you’re a good man. While I’m not quite as down on the film version of LOTR as you are, it’s no secret that I’m disappointed by it. Mostly, I weep at the amount of money that was put into these films and how little there is to actually show for that money. Yes, there are a lot of digitally animated battle scenes, but so what? I wish more of the series was like Fellowship (the extended version).

I became disenchanted wtih the Oscars when Shakespeare in Love beat Saving Private Ryan for Best Picture. And Titanic over L.A. Confidential? Gladiator? The woefully mediocre A Beautiful Mind?

Still, the naive idealistic J.D. holds out hope that truly great films can win Best Picture…

On 12 January 2004 (01:34 PM),
Lynn said:

Aren’t the Oscars really just about ripping on the ugly dresses and hair that people have the gall to think are attractive?

Mart hit it on the head when he stated that it is impossible to compare and judge two or more dissimilar movies. It’s all a matter of taste.

On 12 January 2004 (03:33 PM),
Lisa said:

Excellent! Craig and I have days like yours too–where everyone looks familiar. It’s a strange thing, and we feel it more in Oregon than anywhere else.

On 12 January 2004 (04:27 PM),
Paul said:

J.D.,

LOTR vs. Cold Mountain.

I like LOTR better than you. I am hesitant to admit that I never read the trilogy. I think that might be the crux of the matter: familiarity with the raw material(the books). Because you read the trilogy you have your own opinion as to what would have made the movies better. You probably also have your own idea of how you would have filmed them (or portions of them); which scenes to delete, which to amplify etc. What I don’t think you’ve been able to do is try to imagine them as if experiencing them for the first time (as I did). I guess you have a need to critique the films.

[Now to talk out of the other side of my mouth.]

Having read Cold Mountain I have a deep fear that it will disappoint me. A movie can never duplicate the feel of language, it can of course tell a story but it can’t be the words themselves. I remember when I first read Cold Mountain, it took me an hour for the first 20 pages! I am a painfully slow reader but I was savoring the writing, the words he chose.

Undigital

I understand that digital effects in film are the new rage, that they have forever changed what we see on the screen, but that doesn’t mean I have to be happy about it. Old-fashioned models and puppets may have been obviously fake, but their limitations were, in some ways, good for film-makers.

For example, the space battles in the first three Star Wars films (which are actually the last three films, if you get my meaning) were created using models. The movement of the ships may seem odd at times, but it’s easy to follow the flow of battle, and it’s possible to become emotionally invested in the outcome. These battles, created without digital effects, are engaging and exciting.

Compare that with the last two Star Wars films (which are actually the first two films, if you get my meaning). The space battle in The Phantom Menace may be beautiful (though that’s arguable), but it’s dull. There are too many ships, and things happen too quickly. Worse is the land-based battle in Attack of the Clones. The battlefield explodes with a bewildering array of combatants, and laser fire flashes in every direction. The screen is filled with action. And it all sucks. There’s no narrative thread, so it makes no sense. The film-makers have become obsessed with their effects at the expense of their story.

One of the reasons I so dislike Peter Jackson’s Helms Deep is the endless digitally-created Battle of Helms Deep. It not only looks fake, it’s also overwhelming. I would have preferred a scene created without the use of digital effects. The constraints would have forced Peter Jackson to become more firmly grounded in reality, and to give the audience something with which to indetify.

Kris and I saw The Last Samurai the other night. It’s a decent film. The climactic battle scene is a mix of live-action combat and digital animation. The live-action stuff looks great, but the digital stuff looks to uniform, too artificial, too fake. It threw me out of the film.

Are the problems with digital effects primarily due to the infancy of the medium? Are the creators of these effects too tempted to go over the top, unable to show a modicum of restraint? Will things settle in the future? I hope so, but I�m not convinced.

The battles in The Return of the King feature a lot of digital work, too, but I’m happy to say that I was mostly impressed with the way in which it was handled. It seemed to enhance the battles rather than detract from them. I can’t imagine creating the overhead shots of the charge of the Rohirrim without using digital effects.

For my part, until the digital wizards learn to exercise restraint, I prefer my films to have very little digital enhancement. Part of what made Master and Commander so compelling was that the battles contained little, if any, digital work. (Maybe I�m wrong, but I don’t think so.) One reason that I’m reluctant to see Troy is the absurd scene from the preview in which we pan from viewing a single ship to viewing an evenly spaced fleet of perfectly identical vessels — the mythical “thousand ships” — an utter absurdity born of someone’s orgasmic passion for digital effects. It’s lame.

Comments

On 19 December 2003 (01:08 PM),
dowingba said:

Well, for one thing, the space battles in the first three Star Wars films (or the last three, sir, if you catch my meaning, that is) are “visual effects”, they just aren’t “computer effects”.

I have long had a problem with the influx of Computer Animation too. My biggest problem, though, has always been the textures. Up until 2001 or so, I hadn’t ever seen a computer graphic that looked as good as old style stop-motion just because the textures were always so crappy looking. In the last few years though, texture-modelling seems to have made great leaps.

The battles in all three LOTR movies seem chaotic enough to be a realistic depiction of medieval style warfare. I see no problem (except for the lack of any dialogue or flow in the Helm’s Deep scene).

My biggest problem with the Two Towers, is that the entire movie is just a build up to the Helm’s Deep scene. It’s a 3.5 hour foreshadow, that gets incredibly tedious, especially to one who has all but memorized the book. Also, because they stripped so much away from the Frodo/Sam/Gollum story, it seems like there isn’t even a point to it. They’re just wandering around from place to place. Frankly, except for a few minor events, The Two Towers could basically be ignored and the plot would continue flawlessly from where FOTR ends. Peter Jackson stripped so much away and changed so much that it ceases to have any bearing on the story.

On 19 December 2003 (01:19 PM),
Denise said:

I completely agree. Case in point: Chewie vs. Jar Jar Binks. There is no comparison. Put aside the fact that Chewbacca was one of my favorite characters and Jar Jar was little more than an annoyance – it was painfully obvious that Jar Jar was computer animated. Computer animation makes the character much less believable.

I still enjoy Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back much more than The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones.

On 19 December 2003 (01:23 PM),
Joel said:

So, how do you rate the much-adored digital effect that is Smeagol? Or the Nazgul? Or is it just digital action sequences that get your goat?
I guess what I’m driving at is, I feel that in general you tend to inveigh against violent set-pieces in general (e.g. The Matrix’s lobby scene), not just digitally enhanced/produced ones.
On the other hand, I agree that the climactic battle of The Attack of the Clones struck me as an attempt to transport the audience via a bewildering technicolor chaos, rather than something visually… engaging.

On 19 December 2003 (01:25 PM),
Dana said:

I think the trouble with digital effects is a bit more subtle. Look — The Toy Story movies, and Monsters, Inc., are great movies. The effects are great and the stories are compelling. The problem isn’t digital effects per se, but a lack of restraint in their use by the film makers.

It doesn’t help that, while the textures have improved, the physics hasn’t. Toy Story works because it’s trying to look like an animated film, which doesn’t have realistic physics. When you try and make a photorealistic effect, but it doesn’t move quite right, that sticks out like a sore thumb. The Compu-Neo in the last couple of Matrix movies had this problem in some scenes, I thought, as did Gandalf and the Rohirrim’s charge at the end of the Battle of Helm’s Deep in TTT.

It does bug me when I see this sort of excess. The filmmaker is making a video game, not presenting a story, which is basically JD’s point, too.

On 19 December 2003 (01:26 PM),
Joel said:

Um, let’s rewrite that last sentence: On the other hand, I agree that the climactic battle of The Attack of the Clones was overproduced. It struck me as an attempt to transport the audience via a bewildering technicolor chaos, rather than something visually… engaging.

Yes? Better?

On 19 December 2003 (02:07 PM),
Dana said:

On further reflection, I think Joel is onto something. JD, I think your problem is certain kinds of overproduced set pieces, not digital effects per se.

Consider: You love the pod-racing scene in Phantom Menace, a scene chock-a-block full of digital effects. The Lobby scene in Matrix is mostly wire work and traditional effects, along with clever camera work, I think, as opposed to being digital heavy (although I’m sure there are digital bits layered in), and yet you hate it.

The complication of digital effects is that they tempt the movie maker into putting more of those over-produced, anti-story set pieces into an otherwise engaging film on a (comparatively) meager budget.

Constraints fuel creativity. Necessity is the mother of invention. If it’s easy to do, it’s harder to do in a clever way. Or am I just full of it?

On 19 December 2003 (02:29 PM),
J.D. said:

Joel said: So, how do you rate the much-adored digital effect that is Smeagol? Or the Nazgul? Or is it just digital action sequences that get your goat? I guess what I’m driving at is, I feel that in general you tend to inveigh against violent set-pieces in general (e.g. The Matrix’s lobby scene), not just digitally enhanced/produced ones.

You have a very valid point here. For those unaware, I love the The Matrix, except for the lame-ass “let’s shoot the fuck out of everything while doing somersaults” lobby scene. It’s an example of gratuitous violence and gratuitous effects which does nothing to advance the story. Many people love this scene. I do not.

I think that Gollum looks awesome, and I have no problem with him as a digitalized character. In fact, I think that Serkis deserves an Oscar based on the films I’ve seen this year. Gollum is great. (The Nazgul are not great. They look terrible. The scale is all wrong. But that’s less a digital thing than a vision thing. Peter Jackson simply sees them differently than I do.)

So I guess you’re right, Joel: it’s mostly digital action sequences — or, more specifically, digital fight sequences — that bug me.

Dana said: The complication of digital effects is that they tempt the movie maker into putting more of those over-produced, anti-story set pieces into an otherwise engaging film on a (comparatively) meager budget. Constraints fuel creativity. Necessity is the mother of invention. If it’s easy to do, it’s harder to do in a clever way. Or am I just full of it?

No, I think you’re dead on.

(And you’re right that I love the pod-race sequence, which seems to go against my prevailing preferences, but that’s because I love racing sequences more than I hate digital effects. I love race sequences. Quick. Name J.D.’s favorite kind of video game! First-person shooter? Nope. Real-time strategy? Nope. Role-playing game? Nope. Racing game? Yep! (And arcade racing at that, not simulation.))

In particular, I like this bit: “The complication of digital effects is that they tempt the movie maker into putting more of those over-produced, anti-story set pieces into an otherwise engaging film.” Over-produced, anti-story elements indeed! Perhaps the reason I like the Battle of Pelennor fields is that there are fewer pretentious shots of Aragorn posing in the rain, fewer “oh look how neat ten thousand orcs can look” shots, and that the battle sequences actually seem to served to advance the plotline.

So, this is an incredibly long answer to essentially tell Joel that mainly it’s digital battle scenes that bug me because their creators show absolutely no restraint, no sense of story when they make them.

On 19 December 2003 (03:02 PM),
Lynn said:

ET: The Extra-Terrestrial. He’s so ugly he’s cute and we just all fell in love with the way he walked and moved, as awkward as it was. In the “enhanced with digital effects” version shown recently on TV, they added a digital bathtub scene. “That’s NOT ET!” I shouted! He didn’t look the same, he looked like a cartoon. The real ET was huggable, this able-bodied thing in the bathtub was NOT ET. Digital effects just do not have the same “feeling.”

On 19 December 2003 (03:28 PM),
Denise said:

Interesting to note the difference between the women’s comments about this compared to the men’s (of course, taking Dana out of the equation, as she is computer educated and keep up with the rest of you): Lynn and I commented on the characters, and all the men commented on scenes. Mars vs. Venus, I think this is a good example.

Down with Jar Jar! Just had to add that.

On 19 December 2003 (03:37 PM),
Joel said:

Allow me to alight briefly on the stormy Venusian surface:
As soon as I saw that bathtub scene on a commercial I was like: “I am not going to see this version of E.T.” Then again we were all raised on muppets, weren’t we? Is it just that CGI characters are so real that they seem uncanny and, therefore, repulsive?
I don’t think so, though I’m not visual enough to explain why they don’t seem real (especially in Phantom Menace, where the characters plaid by real live actors seem so artificial that you’d think Jar Jar would fit right in). Gollum is the first effective digital character in a live-action film.

On 19 December 2003 (03:37 PM),
Joel said:

Allow me to alight briefly on the stormy Venusian surface:
As soon as I saw that bathtub scene on a commercial I was like: “I am not going to see this version of E.T.” Then again we were all raised on muppets, weren’t we? Is it just that CGI characters are so real that they seem uncanny and, therefore, repulsive?
I don’t think so, though I’m not visual enough to explain why they don’t seem real (especially in Phantom Menace, where the characters played by real live actors seem so artificial that you’d think Jar Jar would fit right in). Gollum is the first effective digital character in a live-action film.

On 19 December 2003 (03:38 PM),
Joel said:

sorry

On 19 December 2003 (03:44 PM),
Denise said:

I agree completely with Joel about Gollum – both times. Maybe I am stuck on Jar Jar because meese could nevers understood anytings he was sayings.

On 19 December 2003 (07:55 PM),
dowingba said:

My favourite games are a tie between Real Time Strategy and RPG’s. Can you guess why I love LOTR so much?

On 19 December 2003 (07:58 PM),
dowingba said:

Oh, and I remember while watching Star Wars Episode 1 for the first time, thinking “What, is this whole movie just a big Pod Race?” during the horrifically long Pod Race scene. I was rather dismayed. It’s Star Wars, not Little Kids in Pods Wars. Seriously, that scene could have been 1 minute long and conveyed the right message and advanced the plot. The Pod Race scene is a classic example of directors’ CGI-lust ruining movies.

On 19 December 2003 (10:50 PM),
Dana said:

Denise: I agree about the character vs. scene thing. The problem I have with the big set pieces is there’s nothing to connect with. You have activity, but no narrative story and no characters. It’s just events.

I think the core issue with digital characters not seeming ‘real’ is all in the motion. It’s how they’re coordinated, and how they move. The more realistic they look, the more weird they look when they move wrong. It sticks out like a sore thumb.

One of the reasons Gollum is so much better than Jar Jar is that he’s animated using motion capture. Andy Serkis, who does the voice (and plays Smeagol at the begining of RotK), was fitted out with a full body suit that had little colored spots all over it. Then, when they were filming the scene, they’d do it once with him there, acting as gollum, and once with him not there.

Then, they took a computer, and mapped all his motions onto the animated Gollum, who was inserted into the scene without Serkis.

This means that Gollum, for the most part, is moving like a person. He’s kind of like a full-body puppet.

Also, Gollum’s face is a lot more expressive than JarJar’s. And while I don’t think they did motion capture for the facial expressions, I do know they modeled it to look similar to Serkis’ own face, and they had film of him emoting in each scene (from the motion capture footage). They also had him involved in the animation step, sitting there and available to explain how he’d physically move his face to portray different emotions.

Basically, they used a person, had him act a role, then changed what he looked like using a computer animated figure. This is significantly different than what they did with JarJar.

Whew.

Just got back from RotK.

Wow.

Gotta say, this is one powerful movie. And the last half hour had me crying. I did not find the goodbye scene tedious at all.

On 19 December 2003 (11:16 PM),
dowingba said:

Gollum was my absolute favourite literary character ever since I read “The Hobbit” as a kid. I was very happy with the animated Gollum in the LOTR films. Some of his movements seem fake looking still, though, despite the fact that they were motion captured beforehand. His facial expressions are incredible. Unprecedented, clearly. Also, personally, if I had made the films I would have made his character alot more evil and alot less goofy. And what’s with him walking around in the day time? He never walks in the day time (or the night time) in the books. He only ever walks out in the twilight hours around dawn and dusk. He hates the yellow face and the white face! Ack! Gollum! Gollum!

After watching it the second time, I have a observation: in the scene with the hobbits drinking beer in the Shire, I swear Andy Serkis is in the background, as a hobbit. Peter JAckson had better make THe Hobbit. I need more Gollum!!

On 20 December 2003 (12:06 AM),
J.D. said:

Chris said: In the scene with the hobbits drinking beer in the Shire, I swear Andy Serkis is in the background, as a hobbit.

Absolutely, that’s him. It’s hilarious. He’s the hobbit with the giant pumpkin around which everyone is gathered. They’re admiring the pumpkin, rubbing it, wiping it with a cloth. It’s bizarre. I’m sure we’ll learn what it’s all about on the commentary track to the extended DVD next year! :)

On 20 December 2003 (12:15 AM),
dowingba said:

Pesky hobbitses with their precious pumpkinssss.

The Greatest Science Fiction Films

Lynn, a newish foldedspace reader, is proving herself full of good information. She provided the tip about the library book sale (albeit via Denise’s weblog), and yesterday she mentioned The Oregonian‘s list of the fifty greatest science fiction films of all time (as selected by fifteen science fiction authors and “hardcore buffs”)..

Being a science fiction fan, I couldn’t resist tracking down the list. Follow the link to read expanded commentary on each of the selections, or just take a gander at the summary below.

  1. Alien (1979), which Dave and I just saw in the theater on Halloween night. This is a reasonable choice for the top spot.
  2. Blade Runner (1982), giving Ridley Scott the two top spots. Is this really the second-best science fiction film ever made? Pam would disagree. I would, too.
  3. The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), which Dana loves. I only saw it once, long long ago.
  4. Metropolis (1927), which I’ve never seen.
  5. The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
  6. Star Wars (1977), which captured the imagination of a generation.
  7. The Matrix (1999), a film I enjoy more each time I watch it.
  8. Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), which has always bored me.
  9. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), which I recently saw on the big screen; I love the first half, don’t like the second half.
  10. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982), Ugh.
  11. Terminator 2 (1991), say what?
  12. Alphaville (1965), which I’ve never seen.
  13. Aliens (1986), which is okay, but a little over-the-top sometimes.
  14. A Clockwork Orange (1971), which is very disturbing.
  15. Brazil (1985), a fine film dystopia.
  16. Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (1981), which is fun, but number sixteen?
  17. The Thing From Another World (1951), which I’ve never seen.
  18. Solaris (1972) — uh, no. This film is t-e-d-i-o-u-s.
  19. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), which I’ve never seen.
  20. The Terminator (1984) — I’ve never been a fan of the Terminator films.
  21. Testuro: The Iron Man (1988) — hm, a film of which I’ve not ever heard�
  22. Things to Come (1936), which I’ve not seen.
  23. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), a good Star Trek film, and one of my most-watched movies of all time.
  24. Mad Max (1978), which I loved when I was in high school.
  25. Forbidden Planet (1956) — how can you not love Shakespeare in space?
  26. Back to the Future (1985), which I haven’t seen in a long time, so I just added it to my Netflix queue.
  27. The City of Lost Children (1995), which Joel and Aimee love, but which seems too artificial for me.
  28. The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957), now this gave me nightmares when I was a kid. The giant spider was just too much.
  29. Them! (1954), which I’ve never seen.
  30. Akira (1988), which I’ve never seen.
  31. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), which I’ve never seen.
  32. Farenheit 451 (1966), which I saw once long ago but no longer remember.
  33. Repo Man (1984) — Can you believe I’ve never seen it? It’s at number 46 on the Netflix queue.
  34. Planet of the Apes (1968), which has some good scenes, but also looks like a TV movie-of-the-week in most spots. Read the book.
  35. 12 Monkeys (1995) — Boo-yah! I love this film.
  36. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954), which I’ve never seen straight through.
  37. Delicatessen (1991), which I have not seen, but want to.
  38. Fantastic Planet (1971), of which I’ve never heard.
  39. The Fly (1986) — come again?
  40. Jurassic Park (1992), one of my favorite thrill-ride films, I love the T-Rex sequence.
  41. Silent Running (1971), which I cannot sit through, so I’ve never seen the entire thing. Boring.
  42. Return of the Jedi (1983), which should not be on this list — George Lucas beginning to lose restraint.
  43. The Brother From Another Planet (1984) — I’ve never heard of this, either.
  44. The Fifth Element (1997), while agree that elements of this film are visionary, other pieces are utterly annoying.
  45. The Thing (1982), which I’ve only seen once, while drunk in college.
  46. Dark City (1998), which I didn’t like as much as Roger Ebert (who loved it), but it’s on my Netflix queue anyhow.
  47. Pitch Black (2000), which I’ve not seen.
  48. The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975), an indication that this list has degenerated into silliness.
  49. The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976), which I have not seen.
  50. Starship Troopers (1997), which received poor reviews but which I rather liked.

I’m pleased to see that neither of the recent Star Wars films made the list. I may watch them from time-to-time, but it’s simply out of nostalgia, because I’m part of the Star Wars generation. I skip whole scenes (thank you, DVD!). The Oregonian also has a list of the five worst science fiction films of all time, and local celebrities listing their favorite science fiction films.

There are some science fiction films that I particularly like that didn’t make the list. They may not be particularly good, in an objective sense, but I always enjoy:

  • Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979), which I feel is the second best film in the franchise, much better than the over-rated Star Trek IV (which is just painful to watch now): “Double dumbass on you!”
  • When Worlds Collide (1951), a cheesy 1950s science fiction film that I first saw in the theater — it frightened me!
  • Outland (1981), with Sean Connery. This film fits perfectly with the Alien/Blade Runner-type dystopic near future.
  • Buckaroo Banzai (1984), which is pure goofy fun.
  • Logan’s Run (1976), which has a fascinating story poorly brought to screen. A remake might be good, eh?
  • The Black Hole (1979), which is dreadful really, but for which I have a soft spot in my heart.

What science fiction films do you love, and why?

Comments


On 08 November 2003 (11:57 AM),
Dana said:

Ye gods, that list is awful. I agree with about half of it. Alien, while good, is not the best ever made. It’s acceptable as a first choice, but it wouldn’t be mine.

I’ve heard of all the films you haven’t, but a lot of them I haven’t seen, either.

I think part of the difficulty is that it’s hard to actually find 50 good SF films. There is at least one horrible ommision. Contact. Contact is one of the finest SF movies ever made.

I will spare you all my own, personal, list, however. =)

Oh, yeah — I’m pretty sure you misspelled Tetsuo: the Iron Man.



On 08 November 2003 (12:00 PM),
J.D. said:

Come on, Dana. Give us your list. I want to make fun of Time Bandits! :)

And, you’re right — Contact is a fine film, one which belongs near the top of the list. I’d forgotten it, too.



On 08 November 2003 (12:22 PM),
Dana said:

Okay, my top ten. How’s that?

1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
2. Contact
3. Brazil
4. The Truman Show (you’ll probably argue this isn’t SF)
5. The Empire Strikes Back
6. Bladerunner
7. Forbidden Planet
8. The Day the Earth Stood Still
9. 12 Monkeys
10. Back to the Future

I have trouble generating rankings, though. I could easily give you a list of the 50 SF films I think are the best, but ranking them beyond that, saying this is absolutely better than that one is pretty hard. So I think these are probably the top 10, but they may not be very exactly ranked.

And, of course, this is just my opinion. There are a number of films on the original list that I have not seen, so perhaps I’d include them if I’d seen them.



On 08 November 2003 (12:29 PM),
Joel said:

Contact, hmm, now that’s the one that’s all about destruction, right?



On 08 November 2003 (12:33 PM),
Joel said:

In the top 50, I’d want to include more movies that make me laff, like Sleeper and Deathrace 2000.



On 08 November 2003 (12:38 PM),
J.D. said:

Dana’s right; it’s difficult to actually rank my favorite science fiction films. I can tell you what they are, but not the order in which I like them:

  • Alien
  • Blade Runner
  • Outland
  • Star Wars
  • Star Trek: The Motion Picture
  • Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
  • Buckaroo Banzai
  • Contact
  • The Matrix
  • 12 Monkeys

What? No older films? Nope. As much as I like Forbidden Planet and When Worlds Collide, they’re not in the same class. If I could include fantasy, I’d add Spirited Away.

Y’know, I’d love to see some of the old serials I remember watching on television as a kid: the Buck Rogers, the Flash Gordon, the Commander Cody serials. I wonder if Netflix has them…



On 08 November 2003 (12:52 PM),
Dana said:

I should clarify — My above list is what I think qualify as the top ten Best SF Movies.

They are not my ten Favorite SF movies. Because in that case Buckaroo Banzai would be #1! Swoon!



On 08 November 2003 (02:56 PM),
Dave said:

I don’t know that I could come up with a list that was ranked one through ten, but here’s what I would put into that pool of the top SF movies.

Star Trek II
Blade Runner
The Matrix
Alien
Aliens
Highlander
The Empire Strikes Back
Predator
Total Recall
Dune
Gattaca
The Road Warrior

Maybe I’d put Outland on the list, but I’d have to see it again. I keep getting it mixed up with Saturn 3. Not good…



On 08 November 2003 (03:01 PM),
Dana said:


Highlander

Predator
Total Recall
Dune

GACK. Kindly allow me to eviserate you with this spoon…

Gattaca is an excellent choice, and should have been in my list. Replace Back to the Future. Unforgivable omission (Note: remember to kick self).



On 08 November 2003 (04:06 PM),
J.D. said:

Gattaca is good. Very good.



On 08 November 2003 (11:10 PM),
dowingba said:

I am a big fan of Terminator 1 & 2.



On 09 November 2003 (10:11 AM),
Denise said:

I like Terminator I & II, and Highlander. Go figure. Clancy Brown is great in Highlander. I have to say, though, my all-time favorite SF movie is Aliens II, followed closely by Aliens I. Wrath of Khan is great, too, though – especially those ear slugs!



On 10 November 2003 (07:28 AM),
Dave said:

How can you not like Predator!? Sure, it’s not deep, but it has such killer lines as: “This stuff will make you a god damnned sexual Tyrannosaurus…” from the later to be governor of Minnesota. Oh, wait. I guess Dana didn’t vote for the Independence Party candidate in the last election…

And as for Total Recall, what can I say? I like Phillip K. Dick’s stories, even butchered.



On 10 November 2003 (07:34 AM),
J.D. said:

And, if nothing else, Total Recall marked the first time I’d ever seen Sharon Stone in a film. And what an appearance! Hubba hubba.



On 10 November 2003 (08:27 AM),
Amanda said:

Pitch Black is a must see. A low-budget scifi extravaganza with Vin Diesel–what could be better! The first time I saw this movie I was freaked out for days… although it may have been the massive amount of weed I consumed prior to the viewing. Hmm.



On 14 November 2003 (07:33 PM),
chris said:

TRON TRON TRON TRON



On 07 March 2004 (09:53 PM),
Carson Gilmore said:

I would like feedback on the following, which through years of research I have come to deem, in their respective time periods, the most influential science fiction films ever made:

Metropolis (1927)
The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)
The Thing From Another World (1951)
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
The Andromeda Strain (1971)
Blade Runner (1982)

Any comments would be appreciated



On 20 March 2004 (05:44 PM),
Hugh said:

I cannot beleive this list nor the fact that you have not seen some of the greater films on it… SEE them, and watch some of the below!!! For your own good!

mad max II
soyulant green
omega man
brazil
invasion of the body snatcher ( leonard nimoy/donald sutherland remake )
planet of the apes ( series )
demon seed
fantastic voyage
black hole
forbidden planet ( origonal )
repo man
12 monkeys
the man who fell to earth
pitch black
logan’s run
12 monkeys
the andromeda strain
gattaca
alien
metropolis
terminator
matrix
outland

A couple of examples – total recal: excellent book but butchered to pander to the masses, predator? same – excellent story but given some “glitter” to make it sweet enough for mass release. 2001: READ THE BOOK – brilliant, written whilst the film was being made, you will never watch the film again after this. Bladerunner: Ridley Scott makes this film – don’t read the book as the film is highly adapted from the book ( good book in it’s own right but doesn’t stand up to Ridley’s film ). The Thing – even the origonal is good – the remake? Brilliant, read the comics for the expansion on the films ( that goes for a lot of these films – read darkhorse comics for a starting point ). Carson, Amanda and JD have the right idea but if you were to watch the selection I have listed you would see that good Sci-Fi films are out there – watch them!



On 16 September 2005 (08:41 PM),
Joe said:

— My Top List —

I can’t choose the best out of these movies:
1. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
1. Blade Runner (1984)
1. H. G. Wells’ Things to Come (1938)

The Great and Influential Classics:
4. Forbidden Planet (1956)
5. The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)
6. Metropolis (1927)
NA. La Jetee (1962)
NA. The Manchurian Candidate (1962)

Intermission 1. The beasts, creatures and weirdo’s that don’t really interest me, but everyone lists as influential sci-fi:
NA: Frankenstein (1931)
NA: The Thing (1982)
NA: King Kong (1933)
NA: Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956, 78)
NA: Them!

The Great Thinking films:
7. The Matrix: Reloaded (Shows more of the Matrix world than the first film.)
8. A Clockwork Orange
9. Solaris (1972)

For the imagination, special effects, influence, and re-watchability:
10. Star Wars (1977), Empire Strikes Back
11. Alien
12. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn

Intermission 2. Fun, Funnny, and Must See Films:
NA. Dark Star (Phenomenology)
NA. Young Frankenstein (1974)
NA. Spaceballs
NA. Galaxy Quest

Uh… Good for Some Unknown Reason:
13. Silent Running (1971)

More Great Thinking Films:
14. Star Trek: First Contact
15. Total Recall
16. Gattacca
17. Pi
18. Primer (2004)
19. Cube
20. The Andromeda Strain
21. Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970)

Uh… Good for Some Unknown Reason:
22. The Time Machine (1960)

Worth Watching:
NA. Sci-Files (Documentary)
NA. THX 1138
NA. eXistenZ
NA. Soylent Green
NA. A. I. — Artificial Intelligence
NA. Donnie Darko

Flashy and Recommended:

23. Equilibrium
24. Dark City
25. Brazil

Netflix

Update (04 May 04): Here’s a summary table of the value we’re getting for our money.

Month DVDs Mins. $/DVD $/hr Best Worst
Sep 03 11 1622 1.81 .74 Six Feet Under (S1, D1) Talk to Her
Oct 03 12 1739 1.73 .71 A Few Good Men A Fistful of Dollars
Nov 03 10 1340+ 2.00 .89 Unforgiven Rebecca bonus disc
Dec 03 12 1654 1.77 .75 Whale Rider Ladyhawke
Jan 04 14 1578 1.43 .76 Breaking the Waves Altered States
Feb 04 13 1489 1.53 .80 Rabbit-Proof Fence Europa, Europa
Mar 04 13 1437 1.53 .83 Welcome to the Dollhouse Songcatcher
Apr 04 13 2064 1.53 .58 Capturing the Friedmans Bottle Rocket
May 04 9 1133 2.22 1.06 The Fog of War Ripley’s Game
Jun 04 13 1437 2.00 .84 City of God Alias (S2, D3)
Jul 04 8 1055 2.75 1.25 Alias (S2, D4) Six Feet Under (S2, D1)
Aug 04 10 1391 2.20 .95 13 Going on 30 Helena: First Pilgrim
TOTAL 136 18078+ 1.81 .81 The Fog of War Altered States

I’ll udpate this table every month.


After two years of hedging, Kris and I finally broke down and joined Netflix. I was convinced that it was Not For Us. The service costs $20/month (to keep three DVDs at a time); we never rent movies, so how could we possibly make this pay?

Well.

After having only been signed up for four days, the utility of Netflix is quite clear. There are three reasons that we never rent movies:

  1. We’re lazy.
  2. We don’t want to support viral corporations like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video.
  3. The video stores never seem to have the movies we want to rent. (“Akira Kurosawa? Who’s he?”)

Netflix offers a pleasing solution to all three of these problems.

Here’s another thing: I’ve been toying with the idea of subscribing to HBO so that I could catch all the shows that Mart has raved about: Curb Your Enthusiasm, The Sopranos, The Wire, Sex and the City, Six Feet Under. An HBO subscription would cost another $11/month, though, and I’ve been unable to justify that expense. Netflix offers a solution in this instance, too. Many of the HBO series are being released on DVD, thus we can stick them in our Netflix queue and watch them at our leisure. Cool, huh?

Still—there’s a danger that this could end up a money pit. We have some friends (conspicuously nameless) who joined Netflix and thought it was a great deal. Until they had kids. Then the same three movies sat on top of their entertainment center for months. How much did they end up paying to watch those three movies? I shudder to think. It makes me want to take a case of wine over to their house this very moment as a sign of consolation. (At the very least, we’ll invite them over to watch some of the films we’ve rented from Netflix.)

If we actually use the service, Netflix will be a great deal.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, here’s how Netflix works. A member pays a flat monthly fee ($20, in our case) in order to have a certain number of DVDs (three, in our case) mailed to his home. The member is free to keep these DVDs as long as he wants. When he’s finished with one, he mails it back to Netlfix in the supplied postage-paid envelope. Netflix then mails out the next film waiting in the member’s queue (pre-selected list of movies). There are several plans available, but locating anything other than the standard plan is non-obvious.

To our Netflix queue, I’ve already added plenty of stuff to make Kris wince: Clint Eastwood westerns, vintage Dr. Who episodes, and a documentary on Thor Heyerdahl’s Kon-Tiki voyage.

For my own edification, this page is going to serve as an on-going record of our Netflix habits. This will allow me to be certain that we’re getting our money’s worth. (It’s also going to be a subtly revealing insight into our tastes in video.)

Here’s what we’ve rented (descriptions are from the Netflix DVD envelopes):

Marty (1955) — Marty has a problem. Middle-aged and trapped by a smothering mother, his future looks bleak. But when this butcher from the Bronx meets a lonely schoolteacher, suddenly everything is possible. Marty swept the Academy Awards in 1955, winning a Best Actor Oscar for Ernest Borgnine and a Best Screenplay award for Paddy Chayefsky (Network), as well as Best Picture and Best Director Awards. 90 minutes. [received: 09 Sep 03, watched: 10 Sep 03, returned: 11 Sep 03] B-, dated

Six Feet Under (Season One, Disc One) (2001) — This darkly comical HBO television series, about the members of a dynamic but dysfunctional Los Angeles-based family that operates a funeral home, has an ironically grim but intriguing premise: Each episode is based on the death and extenuating circumstances of the family’s current client. The series was created by Alan Ball, who wrote the screenplay for American Beauty. 168 minutes. [received: 09 Sep 03, watched: 10-11 Sep 03, returned: 13 Sep 03] B, with A+ moments — great music

Il Postino (1994) — The lyrical tale of a postman (Massimo Troisi) who delivers mail to and becomes friends with exiled poet Pablo Neruda (Pilippe Noiret). When the postman Mario falls in love with Beatrice (Maria Grazia Cucinotta), he consults Neruda for his best romantic and poetic advice. Il Postino was nominated for Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Director, Best Screenplay (Adapted), and won the Academy Award for Best Original Dramatic Score in 1996. 108 min. [received: 09 Sep 03, watched: 12 Sep 03, returned: 13 Sep 03] B+, very nice film about poetry

Six Feet Under (Season One, Disc Two) (2001) — This darkly comical HBO television series, about the members of a dynamic but dysfunctional Los Angeles-based family that operates a funeral home, has an ironically grim but intriguing premise: Each episode is based on the death and extenuating circumstances of the family’s current client. The series was created by Alan Ball, who wrote the screenplay for American Beauty. 224 min. [received: 13 Sep 03, watched: 14 Sep 03, returned: 15 Sep 03] A+, more great stuff

Additional rentals will be listed in the comments below.

Care to recommend other stuff we should rent?

Comments

On 12 September 2003 (12:07 PM),
mac said:

Is this month’s book the apples book or the bone book? I think I’m reading the wrong book!

On 12 September 2003 (02:27 PM),
Jeff said:

Yes, Netflix is wonderful. Though, since I got TiVo a few months ago, I’ve been largely neglecting my Netflix selections. So much to watch, so little time. Ah, well. But yes, Six Feet Under is fantastic. I love it.

On 12 September 2003 (03:33 PM),
Eryk said:

I had a rather bad experience with Netflix a few months ago. Literally half my disks were being lost on shipping to me and my shipping back to them. A disk arrived cracked once and I decided I had had enough. Apparently they are better now with more shipping centers but I haven’t given them another shot yet.

I was a Six Feet Under addict. Well, I still am. I rented the first season and downloaded the other two. Such a good show. I can’t wait for season four. The same with Sex and the City. I have seen every episode. I’m pathetic! I just recently got introduced to the Soprano’s and have been watching them on my HBO On Demand. Three very great shows at m fingertips whenever I want to watch them. Entertainment overload.

After a month or two with Netflix be sure to post a followup. I’d love to hear if they have cleaned up their act.

On 12 September 2003 (10:05 PM),
dowingba said:

Off topic: Sheesh, JD, you can add another link to your “elsewhere” column but you still procrastinate on the updating of my link. (Shakes head and rolls eyes.)

On 13 September 2003 (12:36 AM),
mart said:

make sure you add takeshi kitano’s “scene at the sea” to your queue. we rented it from netflix. and maybe his “kikujiro” too.

On 18 September 2003 (07:59 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

More Netflix films we’ve seen:

Six Feet Under (Season One, Disc Three) (2001) — This darkly comical HBO television series, about the members of a dynamic but dysfunctional Los Angeles-based family that operates a funeral home, has an ironically grim but intriguing premise: Each episode is based on the death and extenuating circumstances of the family’s current client. The series was created by Alan Ball, who wrote the screenplay for American Beauty. 168 min. [received: 15 Sep 03, watched: 16 Sep 03, returned: 18 Sep 03] A+, continued excellence

Six Feet Under (Season One, Disc Four) (2001) — This darkly comical HBO television series, about the members of a dynamic but dysfunctional Los Angeles-based family that operates a funeral home, has an ironically grim but intriguing premise: Each episode is based on the death and extenuating circumstances of the family’s current client. The series was created by Alan Ball, who wrote the screenplay for American Beauty. 168 min. [received: 15 Sep 03, watched: 17 Sep 03, returned: 19 Sep 03] A-, still good, but the “Billy” subplot grows tedious

Kon-Tiki (1950) — This is the Academy-Award winning film of an astonishing adventure, a journey spanning 4300 nautical miles across the Pacific Ocean by raft. On 28 April 1947, Norwegian biologist Thor Heyerdahl and his five crew members embarked from Peru on a daring voyage to prove Heyerdahl’s theory that the South Sea Islands were settled by South Americans aboard balsa wood rafts. The expedition attracted worldwide interest, with Heyerdahl’s book “Kon-Tiki” selling over 20 million copies is 67 languages and this Oscar-winning documentary. 58 min. [received: 18 Sep 03, watched: 18 Sep 03, returned: 19 Sep 03] A, fascinating documentary

On 21 September 2003 (08:09 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

Talk to Her (2002) — Renowned writer-director Pedro Almodovar weighs in with a compelling story (as usual) abut two men who become frineds based on a shared love of women who are in comas—although their individual circumstances are completely different. The film (which won the best screenplay Oscar in 2003) is bookended by dance performances, with characters from the movie watching in the audience, and also features a movie-within-the-movie. 105 min. [received: 19 Sep 03, watched: 20 Sep 03, returned: 21 Sep 03] C, best screenplay?!??!!? some (mildly) interesting moments, but overall quite dull

On 22 September 2003 (04:21 PM),
Denise said:

“Talk to her” typos:

abut two men
become frineds

Thank goodness I’m not the only one!

On 29 September 2003 (10:12 AM),
J.D. Roth said:

The Insider (1999) — Although shamefully ignored at the box office, The Insider garnered seven well-deserved Oscar nominations, including Best Picture and Best Actor (Russell Crowe). This fact-based film chronicles “60 Minutes” producer Lowell Bergman’s attempt to blow the whistle on the tobacco industry, with Jeffrey Wigand’s help. Highlighted by spectacular cinematography and bravura performances from Crowe, Al Pacino, and Christopher Plummer, this controversial film will have you looking at “60 Minutes” and the big tobacco companies in a different light. 157 min. [received: 20 Sep 03, watched: 25 Sep 03, returned: 29 Sep 03] B+, a good film (though dull in spots) with great cinematography

Lagaan (2001) — A remarkable story about the triumph of the ordinary, set in 1890s India. The ruling British have imposed a harsh tax (lagaan) on the farmers, prompting the villagers of Champaner to plead for a waiver. So, an arrogant and capricious British commander, Capt. Russell, challenges the villagers to a cricket match: If the villagers win, they’ll avoid taxation for 3 years; if they lose, they’ll pay the tax thrice over. 225 min. [received: 23 Sep 03, watched: 26 Sep 03, returned: 29 Sep 03] B+, very fun film, though sometimes trite, including some gorgeous musical numbers

Sophie’s Choice (1982) — Aspiring author Stingo (Peter MacNicol) shares a Brooklyn boarding house with winsome Polish émigré Sophie (Meryl Streep) and her mercurial lover, Nathan (Kevin Kline)—a union unsettled by Nathan’s violent behavior and Sophie’s disturbing recollections of her wartime experience. Stingo discovers that Sophie is a fraud, though, when her accounts of her stint at a Nazi concentration camp unravel, laying bare the real source of her torment. 151 min. [received: 24 Sep 03, watched: 27 Sep 03, returned: 29 Sep 03] C, well-made perhaps, but dull and pointless, with a climax (revealing Sophies “choice”) that fails completely

Here are the final numbers for September 2003: We rented eleven DVDs through Netflix (for an average of $1.81/DVD), and watched a total of 1622 minutes (for an average of 74 cents per hour).

On 06 October 2003 (06:13 AM),
J.D. said:

Sports Night (Season One, Disc One) (1998) — Aaron Sorkin’s critically acclaimed sitcom ran on ABC for three years, offering a witty behind-the-scenes look at the production of a TV show. Starring Peter Krause and John Charles as the show’s anchors, “Sports Night” is not at all about sports, but about the show’s frantic, often quirky characters and the tough moral and ethical questions they face. This disc includes Season One, episodes 1-8. 192 min. [received: 02 Oct 03, watched: 04-05 Oct 03, returned: 06 Oct 03] B, good but not great, sometimes heavy-handed, not able to find its balance, but worth watching

On 11 October 2003 (11:28 AM),
J.D. said:

Sports Night (Season One, Disc Two) (1998) — Aaron Sorkin’s critically acclaimed sitcom ran on ABC for three years, offering a witty behind-the-scenes look at the production of a TV show. Starring Peter Krause and John Charles as the show’s anchors, “Sports Night” is not at all about sports, but about the show’s frantic, often quirky characters and the tough moral and ethical questions they face. This disc includes Season One, episodes 9-16. 192 min. [received: 01 Oct 03, watched: 06-09 Oct 03, returned: 10 Oct 03] B, the series finds its footing

Sports Night (Season One, Disc Three) (1998) — Aaron Sorkin’s critically acclaimed sitcom ran on ABC for three years, offering a witty behind-the-scenes look at the production of a TV show. Starring Peter Krause and John Charles as the show’s anchors, “Sports Night” is not at all about sports, but about the show’s frantic, often quirky characters and the tough moral and ethical questions they face. This disc includes Season One, episodes 17-23. 168 min. [received: 09 Oct 03, watched: 09-10 Oct 03, returned: 11 Oct 03] A-, very good episodes as the season’s subplots come to a head

On 14 October 2003 (02:36 PM),
J.D. said:

A Fistful of Dollars (1964) — Clint Eastwood’s legendary “Man With No Name” makes his powerful debut in this thrilling, action-packed “new breed of western”. Exploding with blistering shoot-outs, dynamic performances and atmospheric cinematography, it’s an undisputed classic of the genre. 101 min. [received: 01 Oct 03, watched: 12-13 Oct 03, returned: 14 Oct 03] D, whatever — this film is awful

On 16 October 2003 (09:29 AM),
J.D. said:

Sports Night (Season Two, Disc One) (1999) — Aaron Sorkin’s critically acclaimed sitcom ran on ABC for three years, offering a witty behind-the-scenes look at the production of a TV show. Starring Peter Krause and John Charles as the show’s anchors, “Sports Night” is not at all about sports, but about the show’s frantic, often quirky characters and the tough moral and ethical questions they face. This disc includes Season Two, episodes 24-31. 184 min. [received: 15 Oct 03, watched: 15 Oct 03, returned: 16 Oct 03] B-, more polish, loose threads, trademark Sorkin plots, the show seems to lose its sizzle

On 17 October 2003 (07:42 AM),
J.D. said:

Sports Night (Season Two, Disc Two) (1999) — Aaron Sorkin’s critically acclaimed sitcom ran on ABC for three years, offering a witty behind-the-scenes look at the production of a TV show. Starring Peter Krause and John Charles as the show’s anchors, “Sports Night” is not at all about sports, but about the show’s frantic, often quirky characters and the tough moral and ethical questions they face. This disc includes Season Two, episodes 32-38. 161 min. [received: 15 Oct 03, watched: 16 Oct 03, returned: 17 Oct 03] A-, what happened? suddenly the show recovers for its best run of episodes yet, including the truly funny boxing episode

On 25 October 2003 (12:03 AM),
J.D. Roth said:

Sports Night (Season Two, Disc Three) (1999) — Aaron Sorkin’s critically acclaimed sitcom ran on ABC for three years, offering a witty behind-the-scenes look at the production of a TV show. Starring Peter Krause and John Charles as the show’s anchors, “Sports Night” is not at all about sports, but about the show’s frantic, often quirky characters and the tough moral and ethical questions they face. This disc includes Season Two, episodes 39-45. 161 min. [received: 16 Oct 03, watched: 18 Oct 03, returned: 20 Oct 03] B, the whow fizzles out…

On 25 October 2003 (12:12 AM),
J.D. Roth said:

A Few Good Men (1992) — Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, and Demi Moore star in Rob Reiner’s unanimously acclaimed drama about the dangerous difference between following orders and following one’s conscience. A brash Navy lawyer who’s teamed with a gung-ho litigator in a politically-explosive murder case. [note: that wasn’t even a complete sentence, Netflix — you can do better than that!] Charged with defending two Marines accused of killing a fellow soldier, they are confronted with complex issues of loyalty and honor — including its most sacred code and its most formidable warrior. 138 min. [received: 22 Oct 03, watched: 24 Oct 03, returned: 25 Oct 03] A, Aaron Sorkin at his very best

Far From Heaven (2002) — A Connecticut housewife (Julianne Moore) finds herself dealing with her husband’s (Dennis Quaid) infidelity (she finds him with another man) and the racial tension that epitomized the late 1950s and the advent of the Civil Rights movement in the United States. As a coping mechanism, she develops a friendship with her African-American gardener (Dennis Haysbert), who’s full of sage wisdom. [note: that’s bunk — sage wisdom? give me a break] 108 min. [received: 21 Oct 03, watched: 24 Oct 03, returned: 25 Oct 03] C, a pure and noble failure

On 26 October 2003 (09:05 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

For a Few Dollars More (1965) — Clint Eastwood continues his trademark role as the legendary “Man With No Name” [note: why do they say this? his characters have names, and each is different — these movies aren’t related at all] in this second installment of the famous Sergio Leone trilogy. This is a modern classic, one of the greatest westerns ever made. Eastwood is a keen-eyed, quick-witted bounty hunter on the bloody trail of Indio, the territory’s most treacherous bandit. But his ruthless rival, Colonel MOrtimer (Lee Van Cleef), is determined to bring Indio in first…Dead or Alive! 131 min. [received: 21 Oct 03, watched: 26 Oct 03, returned: 27 Oct 03] C+, better — and parts are great — but still not that good

On 31 October 2003 (06:08 AM),
J.D. Roth said:

Blood Simple (1984) — Blood Simple is a bizarre crime story about a seedy Texas bar owner who devises a plot to have his own wife and her lover murdered. What results is a chaotic chain of misunderstandings, lies, and mischief. 96 min. [received: 29 Oct 03, watched: 30 Oct 03, returned: 31 Oct 03] C+, well-crafted, but that doesn’t make a compelling film

Malice (1993) — College Dean Andy Safian (Bill Pullman) and his breathtaking wife, Tracy (Nicole Kidman), live a nice, peaceful life in a small college town. When the rape of a girl on campus brings Andy to the hospital, he runs into an old friend, Dr. Jed Hill (Alec Baldwin). Everything in their lives changes when Andy rents a room in their home to Dr. Hill despite Tracy’s objections. Suddenly nothing is as it appears, and no one is exactly who they say they are. 107 min. [received: 28 Oct 03, watched: 30 Oct 03, returned: 31 Oct 03] D, proof that Aaron Sorkin is not infallible — this movie is awful, especially in the beginning: the acting is bad, the direction is bad, the dialogue is bad, and the story is obvious — not good

Here are the final numbers for October 2003: We rented twelve DVDs through Netflix (for an average of $1.66/DVD), and watched a total of 1739 minutes (for an average of 68 cents per hour). Our cumulative totals through two monhths: We’ve rented 23 DVDs through Netflix (for an average of $1.73/DVD), and watched a total of 3361 minutes (for an average of 71 cents per hour).

On 05 November 2003 (10:24 AM),
J.D. said:

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1967) — The classic action-packed Western about an unholy trio’s lethal pursuit of $200,000 in Confederate money which forms the core of this bullet-ridden tale. Includes 14 minutes of footage never seen before in the United States. 162 min. [received: 28 Oct 03, watched: 03 Nov 03, returned: 04 Nov 03] B+, much better than its predecessors, very good in spots, beautiful cinematography

On 05 November 2003 (11:12 AM),
Lynn said:

I’m not a fan of Eastwood’s westerns – not my genre – but I did see parts of his appearance recently on “Inside the Actor’s Studio” with James Lipton. He said he had complete freedome in regards to his character in this trilogy. He said the director didn’t speak English and he didn’t speak Italian so he brought his own wardrobe and decided on that raspy voice. Also, he said he bought the cigars in a store in Beverly Hills – they were very long and skinny so he cut them in thirds. Just thought it was funny.

On 05 November 2003 (04:03 PM),
Denise said:

I love Clint Eastwood – but I think that is because growing up, my Dad would watch any Clint Eastwood movie that was on tv – especially the spaghetti westerns.

I think Clint Eastwood is the John Wayne of our generation…and when he dies, he will be extremely missed at least by one fan!

On 06 November 2003 (09:30 PM),
J.D. said:

Network (1976) — Even more compelling today than when it was first released, Network is a wickedly funny, dead-on indictment of the television news media, frighteningly ahead of its time. Faye Dunaway, William Holden, Peter Finch, and Robert Duvall star in this searing portrait of television exploitation. When longtime news anchor Howard Beale is fired, he suffers a violent on-air breakdown. But when his sagging ratings are boosted by his angry rantings, he’s subsequently rehired and reinvented as the ‘mad prophet of the airwaves’. 121 min. [received: 06 Nov 03, watched: 06 Nov 03, returned: 07 Nov 03] A? F? C+?, intelligent writing and, at the core, a brilliant film, but it’s laden with some dead weight — I’d love to see a modern remake

On 07 November 2003 (05:30 PM),
J.D. said:

Miller’s Crossing (1990) — Gabriel Byrne stars as Tom Reagan in Joel and Ethan Coen’s take on the 30s gangster film. Adviser to a Prohibition-era crime boss (Albert Finney), Tom gets caught in the lteral and figurative crossfire when his loyalties are divided between warring mobs. Mix in an affair with the boss’s dame (Marcia Gay Harden), several double-crosses and backstabs and the Coens’ typical blackly funny dialogue, and you’ve got a bang-up (literally) movie. 115 min. [received: 056 Nov 03, watched: 07 Nov 03, returned: 08 Nov 03] B, Roger Ebert’s review is spot-on: elements of this film are good, but it seems fake, is missing some essential spark

On 24 November 2003 (10:10 PM),
J.D. said:

Daniel Deronda (2002) — Based on George Eliot’s novel about a love triangle gone awry, Daniel Deronda originally aired on television as part of the award-winning Masterpiece Theatre series. The illegitimate son of a wealthy British aristocrat, Daniel harbors a secretive past and a ready supply of cash. When he meets Gwendolyn, a beautiful woman in desperate need of money, things get complicated, as he’s already involved in a passionate relationship with a Jewish singer. 210 min. [received: 12 Nov 03, watched: 14 Nov 03, returned: 24 Nov 03] B-, from the same team as the marvelous Pride and Prejudice, this miniseries is not as good

Rebecca (1940) — Here’s a recipe for happiness: Marry a mysterious widower (Laurence Olivier), then move into his mansion and take orders from his servants! That’s the situation the hapless — and nameless — second Mrs. de Winter (Joan Fontaine) faces in Alfred Hitchcock’s eerie adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier’s Gothic classic. This was the only Hitchcock film to win an Oscar for Best Picture. 130 min. [received: 14 Nov 03, watched: 15 Nov 03, returned: 16 Nov 03] A-, a classic film worth viewing

Rebecca, the Bonus Disc (1940) — The bonus disc for the film Rebecca, containing interviews and documentaries and supplementary material. N/A min. [received: 14 Nov 03, watched: 15 Nov 03, returned: 16 Nov 03] C, big promises unfulfilled

Homicide: Life on the Streets Season Three, Disc One (1994) — Based on a book by David Simon, this intense police drama has a storied pedigree, earning numerous Emmy, Writer’s Guild and George Foster Peabody Awards for its cerebral plotlines, smart dialogue, showcase acting and riveting camerawork. Andre Braugher (as Det. Frank Pembleton), who stayed for all but one season, led a stellar cast that included Richard Belzer, Daniel Baldwin, Ned Beatty and more. This disc includes a trio of related episodes, all tied together by a pair of white gloves: “Nearer My God to Thee”, “Fits Like a Glove”, and “Extreme Unction”. 145 min. [received: 18 Nov 03, watched: 24 Nov 03, returned: 25 Nov 03] B-, a trilogy of episodes that try too hard but never pay off

On 26 November 2003 (11:34 AM),
J.D. said:

Unforgiven (1992) — Long-retired gunslinger William Munny (Clint Eastwood) reluctantly takes one last job — and even more reluctantly accepts a boastful youth (Jaimz Woolvett) as a partner. Together, they discover how easily complicated truths are distorted into simplistic myths about the Old West. Gene Hackman (who won an Oscar) and Richard Harris stand out as old foes who have an unhappy reunion. Other Oscars include Best Picture and Director (Eastwood). 127 min. [received: 18 Nov 03, watched: 25 Nov 03, returned: unknown — I’m watching it again and then loaning it to Tony] A+, outstanding film in every respect, especially the writing (from the writer of Blade Runner, Ladyhawke, Hero, and Twelve Monkeys!!!) — here’s Ebert’s review &mdash it’s on his list of great movies

On 27 November 2003 (12:06 PM),
J.D. said:

Chinatown (1974) — Private eye J.J. Gittes (Jack Nicholson) uncoveres intricate dirty dealings in the Los Angeles waterworks and gets his nose slashed for his grief. Suspicious, porcelain-skinned famme fatale Faye Dunaway (who harbors a nasty family secret) finances Gittes’ snooping. Director Roman Polanski reimagines 1930s Los Angeles in this brilliant detective thriller. And Robert Towne’s onion-like script reveals itself one complex layer at a time. 130 min. [received: 26 Nov 03, watched: 26 Nov 03, returned: 28 Nov 03] B+, a fine film but not as good as I had remembered — great script, though

On 30 November 2003 (06:11 PM),
J.D. said:

Homicide: Life on the Streets Season Three, Disc Two (1994) — Based on a book by David Simon, this intense police drama has a storied pedigree, earning numerous Emmy, Writer’s Guild and George Foster Peabody Awards for its cerebral plotlines, smart dialogue, showcase acting and riveting camerawork. Andre Braugher (as Det. Frank Pembleton), who stayed for all but one season, led a stellar cast that included Richard Belzer, Daniel Baldwin, Ned Beatty and more. This disc includes the following episodes: “Crosetti”, “The Last of the Watermen”, and “A Model Citizen”, and “Happy to Be Here”. 200 min. [received: 18 Nov 03, watched: 24 Nov 03, returned: 25 Nov 03] B, good quality television perhaps, but not as good as I’d like

Here are the final numbers for November 2003: We rented ten DVDs through Netflix (for an average of $2.00/DVD), and watched a total of 1340+ minutes (for an average of 89 cents per hour). Our cumulative totals through two monhths: We’ve rented 33 DVDs through Netflix (for an average of $1.81/DVD), and watched a total of 4701+ minutes (for an average of 76 cents per hour).

On 07 December 2003 (09:24 PM),
J.D. said:

Ladyhawke (1985) — Ladyhawke is the enchanted story of a porcelain-skinned beauty, a stalwart black-shroud knight…and The Mouse. During the night, Rutger Hauer becomes a wolf and during the day Michelle Pfeiffer assumes the form of a hawk. Also with Matthew Broderick. 121 min. [received: 02 Dec 03, watched: 02 Dec 2003, returned: 05 Dec 03] C, fairly dull though the core idea is clever

Homicide: Life on the Streets Season Three, Disc Three (1994) — Based on a book by David Simon, this intense police drama has a storied pedigree, earning numerous Emmy, Writer’s Guild and George Foster Peabody Awards for its cerebral plotlines, smart dialogue, showcase acting and riveting camerawork. Andre Braugher (as Det. Frank Pembleton), who stayed for all but one season, led a stellar cast that included Richard Belzer, Daniel Baldwin, Ned Beatty and more. This disc includes the following episodes: “All Through the House”, “Nothing Personal”, and “Every Mother’s Son”. 145 min. [received: 05 Dec 03, watched: 07 Dec 03, returned: 08 Dec 03] C and A, the first two episodes are dull but “Every Mother’s Son” is quite good

On 11 December 2003 (08:29 AM),
J.D. said:

The French Connection (1971) — Jimmy “Popeye” Doyle (Gene Hackman), a foul-mouthed, violent narcotics detective, pursues a suave French drug dealer (Fernando Rey) through New York City with Captain Ahab-like zeal. Director William Friedkin took the provocative stance that both the narcs and the smugglers use similar thuggish ends to get what they need. This thrilling Best Picture Oscar winner (based on a true story) is famous for its riveting car-vs.-elevated-train chase. 104 min. [received: 06 Dec 03, watched: 09-10 Dec 2003, returned: 11 Dec 03] B-, I love the gritty sets but the early-70s ultra-realism doesn’t appeal to my modern sensibilities

On 21 December 2003 (01:25 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

Family Guy Season One, Disc One (1999) — Fans of this Fox TV show, which premiered in 1999 (and was canceled after three seasons, much to the chagrin of diehard followers), will rejoice at this collection of the series’ episodes. Each one is riddled with pop-culture referencs made by Peter, Stewie, and the rest of the gang that have made the show a cult hit. This disc contains all seven episodes from the first season. 158 min. [received: 09 Dec 03, watched: 09 Dec 2003, returned: 10 Dec 03] A-, damn funny stuff though a bit repetitive

Family Guy Season Two, Disc One (1999) — Fans of this Fox TV show, which premiered in 1999 (and was canceled after three seasons, much to the chagrin of diehard followers), will rejoice at this collection of the series’ episodes. Each one is riddled with pop-culture referencs made by Peter, Stewie, and the rest of the gang that have made the show a cult hit. This disc contains the first seven episodes from the second season. 158 min. [received: 10 Dec 03, watched: 10 Dec 2003, returned: 11 Dec 03] B, this would have been funny in weekly doses, but it gets old when watched all at once

On 21 December 2003 (01:33 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

Homicide: Life on the Streets Season Three, Disc Four (1994) — Based on a book by David Simon, this intense police drama has a storied pedigree, earning numerous Emmy, Writer’s Guild and George Foster Peabody Awards for its cerebral plotlines, smart dialogue, showcase acting and riveting camerawork. Andre Braugher (as Det. Frank Pembleton), who stayed for all but one season, led a stellar cast that included Richard Belzer, Daniel Baldwin, Ned Beatty and more. This disc includes the following episodes: “Cradle to Grave”, “Partners”, and “The City That Bleeds”, and “Dead End”. 200 min. [received: 18 Dec 03, watched: 19 Dec 03, returned: 22 Dec 03] B, “Cradle to Grave” is awful, “The City that Bleeds” is prett good

Homicide: Life on the Streets Season Three, Disc Five (1994) — Based on a book by David Simon, this intense police drama has a storied pedigree, earning numerous Emmy, Writer’s Guild and George Foster Peabody Awards for its cerebral plotlines, smart dialogue, showcase acting and riveting camerawork. Andre Braugher (as Det. Frank Pembleton), who stayed for all but one season, led a stellar cast that included Richard Belzer, Daniel Baldwin, Ned Beatty and more. This disc includes the following episodes: “End Game”, “Law and Disorder”, and “The Old and the Dead”. 143 min. [received: 18 Dec 03, watched: 19 Dec 03, returned: 22 Dec 03] B, this is a show that could be good but that lacks some essential element

On 21 December 2003 (03:12 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

Whale Rider (2003) — Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown. A Maori tribe must contend with the distinctly non-traditional concept of having a female leader when young Pai’s (Keisha Castle-Hughes) twin brother — the intended heir to the throne — dies during childbirth. Now, she must struggle to prove herself. Stars Rawiri Paratene, Vicky Haughton, Cliff Curtis and Grant Roa. Written and directed by Niki Caro 101 min. [received: 20 Dec 03, watched: 21 Dec 03, returned: 22 Dec 03] A, a wonderful film that starts slowly but gathers strength in the telling, but why on earth is this PG-13? There’s no reason that it should not be rated G — Keisha Castle-Hughes is gorgeous and a revelation as an actress — read Roger Ebert’s glowing review

On 25 December 2003 (10:23 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

Homicide: Life on the Streets Season Three, Disc Six (1994) — Based on a book by David Simon, this intense police drama has a storied pedigree, earning numerous Emmy, Writer’s Guild and George Foster Peabody Awards for its cerebral plotlines, smart dialogue, showcase acting and riveting camerawork. Andre Braugher (as Det. Frank Pembleton), who stayed for all but one season, led a stellar cast that included Richard Belzer, Daniel Baldwin, Ned Beatty and more. This disc includes the following episodes: “In Search of Crimes Past”, “Colors”, and “The Gas Man”, and “Dead End”. 200 min. [received: 24 Dec 03, watched: 24 Dec 03, returned: 26 Dec 03] A, a great disc featuring high-quality episodes

On 28 December 2003 (11:09 AM),
J.D. Roth said:

The Office Series One (2001) — The workplace depicted in this six-part BBC series is as dysfunctional as it gets. David Brent (Ricky Gervais), office manager of nondescript Wernham-Hogg in Slough, is at once zany, clueless, and mortifying. David likes to drink, divulge deeply personal information at odd moments, read his poetry, and make a fool of himself in front of his team, which is made up of Gareth the sycophant, Tim the sensitive guy, flirtatious Donna, and many others. (Note: that description, from Netflix, sucks — it’s inaccurate in many respects.) 177 min. [received: 24 Dec 03, watched: 26-27 Dec 03, returned: 29 Dec 03] B+, very dry, very funny, though sometimes the humor either doesn’t work or gets repetitive

The Office Bonus Disc (2001) — Much like the series itself, there’s nothing run-of-the-mill about The Office Bonus Disc. Among other goodies, it features “How I Made the Office”, an entertaining look at the show’s genesis by creator Ricky Gervais (who stars as David Brent); a short film on which the BBC series was based; bloopers that make already funny bits even more so; and the piece de resistance — Peter Purves’s training video, as seen in the fourth episode. 47 min. [received: 24 Dec 03, watched: 27 Dec 03, returned: 29 Dec 03] A-, funny, but short, and from the description of the disc, we must have missed some hidden content

On 31 December 2003 (08:48 AM),
J.D. said:

Finding Nemo (2003) — Pixar, the studio that brought you Monsters, Inc., A Bug’s Life, and the Toy Story movies, heads Down Under for an amazing animated underwater adventure. Albert Brooks and Ellen DeGeners lend their voices to the characters of Marlin and Dory, two fish searching high and low for Marlin’s missing son, Nemo. Along the way they meet surprisingly friendly sharks, a flick of beady-eyed seagulls, and some seriously laid-back sea turtles. Surf’s up, dude! 100 min. [received: 30 Dec 03, watched: 30 Dec 03, returned: 31 Dec 03] B, okay — and with some funny bits — but overrated (Kris and I don’t understand why people love Pixar movies so much; if they were animated in a traditional manner, they’d be considered run-of-the mill); as with most Pixar movies, this one is far too loud (lots of screaming and banging — ugh)

Here are the final numbers for December 2003: We rented twelve DVDs through Netflix (for an average of $1.66/DVD), and watched a total of 1654 minutes (for an average of 72 cents per hour). Our cumulative totals through four monhths: We’ve rented 45 DVDs through Netflix (for an average of $1.77/DVD), and watched a total of 6355+ minutes (for an average of 75 cents per hour).

On 04 January 2004 (10:20 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

The Hudsucker Proxy (1994) — Mailroom clerk Norville Barnes (Tim Robbins) is a rube, a schmo, a grade-A ding dong, just what Hudsucker Industries wants in a president! With him at the top, the stock will hit bottom, and the fat cats can take over. But Norville has his own spiffy plan. And if a snoopy reporter (Jennifer Jason Leigh) doesn’t put the kibosh on the Hudsucker flimflam and finagling big cheese Sidney J. Mussburger (Paul Newman) doesn’t squash him, Norville’s idea will put a smile on the hips of all America. From the ever uneven Joel and Ethan Coen. 111 min. [received: 03 Jan 04, watched: 04 Jan 04, returned: 05 Jan 04] B-, stylish, Leigh is great, but this film lacks some essential spark; it falls flat

Hero (1992) — Geena Davis is ace reporter Gale Gayley, who literally falls into the story of a lifetime when she’s a passenger that crashes into a Chicago bridge. In the smoke and darkness, she’s saved by a rude foul-mouthed hero (Dustin Hoffman) who promptly disappears into the night, leaving only his shoe behind. When Gale’s TV station offers a million dollars to the mystery hero, a gentle Vietnam vet (Andy Garcia) appears to claim the prize. 118 min. [received: 02 Jan 04, watched: 04 Jan 04, returned: 05 Jan 04] C-, basically an average film with more bad moments than good (though there is a little good in it) — too much is ludicrously improbable

On 04 January 2004 (10:23 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

HA! I said the same thing about Hudsucker Proxy that I said about Miller’s Crossing: “lacks some essential spark”. And it’s true, too. The Coen brothers seem to sometimes get too wrapped up in being stylish at the expense of storytelling. I don’t deny that their style is attractive, but give me a Fargo or a Big Lebowski or a even a Blood Simple over a Hudsucker Proxy or a Miller’s Crossing or — worst of all — a Raising Arizona.

On 08 January 2004 (09:56 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) — A group of real estate salesmen (Jack Lemmon, Al Pacino, Ed Harris, and Alan Arkin) in Chicago vie for the best leads at a small firm selling property in resort areas such as Florida and Arizona. When a hotshot executive (Alec Baldwin) from the head office arrives and proposes a vicious sales contest (the winner gets a Cadillac, the loser gets fired), competition gets stiff, and the veteran salesmen suddenly find their jobs in jeapordy. 100 min. [received: 02 Jan 04, watched: 06 Jan 04, returned: 07 Jan 04] D, as in dull — what the hell? yes, this film captures some of what it’s like to be in sales, but mostly it’s a flurry of foul language and dialogue that goes nowhere

Glory (1989) — An epic tale of triumph and tragedy. Based on the letters of Col. Robert G. Shaw, Glory tells the tale of a Union Army regiment composed entirely of black volunteers. Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, and Andre Braugher stand out as soliders with a personal stake in the fight against slavery. Matthew Broderick shines as Shaw, who commanded the regiment at great personal risk. 118 min. [received: 08 Jan 04, watched: 08 Jan 04, returned: 09 Jan 04] B+, not a great film by any means, but affecting, especially in its latter half

On 09 January 2004 (09:28 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

Big Night (1996) — Despite having a talented chef and outstanding cuisine, an Italian restaurant run by two brothers (Stanley Tucci, who also wrote and directed, and Tony Shalhoub) teeters on the verge of bankruptcy. It’s then they learn a huge star will visit their bistro for a multicourse meal. With everything to lose, the brothers pull out all the stops hoping the big night will save their trattoria. 109 min. [received: 07 Jan 04, watched: 09 Jan 04, returned: 10 Jan 04] A-, a wonderful film that falters just a little in its final act

On 13 January 2004 (11:46 AM),
J.D. said:

My Dinner With Andre (1981) — From Louis Malle, the Academy Award nominated director of Au Revoir Les Enfants, comes this highly acclaimed film. This whimsical comedy [ed: WTF? whimsical comedy?] was written by and stars Wallace Shawn [ed: Mr. “Inconceivable” of Princess Bride fame] and Andre Gregory. Two old friends meet in a chic New York restaurant where Andre recounts his mystical adventures of the past few years. The focus then turns to the relationship between the two men, their innermost feelings and loves, and their different ideas concerning the purpose of life. When the check eventually comes, one of them will have been profoundly changed. 110 min. [received: 12 Jan 04, watched: 12 Jan 04, returned: 13 Jan 04] n/a, how does one grade this film? It’s unlike anything I’ve ever seen. It’s not everyone, to be sure, but for those who are patient, it’s challenging and stimulating, like reading a good book.

On 13 January 2004 (12:21 PM),
mart said:

how do you grade it? you give it an a+. and while yr at it, you upgrade glengarry glen ross to at least a and possibly a+ status! tsk-tsk. for shame…

On 19 January 2004 (10:04 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

Ever After (1998) — A classic fairy tale is given new life in this enchanting story about a young 16th-century woman as independent and wise as she is beautiful and kind. Against all odds, she defies her scheming stepmother and makes her dreams come true. 121 min. [received: 14 Jan 04, watched: 16 Jan 04, returned: 17 Jan 04] B, feminist Cinderella story isn’t really as dumb as it sounds — a good movie for a Friday night at home

The Incredible Adventures of Wallace and Gromit (2001) — Animator Nick Park’s most beloved creations come to life in this DVD, which includes all three of the pair’s adventures: “A Close Shave,” “A Grand Day Out” and “The Wrong Trousers.” In each, the unflappable, cheese-worshipping Wallace and his loyal dog, Gromit, foil the plans of dastardly penguins, conniving robotic sheep dogs and others who threaten to destroy the equilibrium of their happy, predictable lives. 85 min. [received: 15 Jan 04, watched: 17 Jan 04, returned: 20 Jan 04] B, yes, bits are clever, and “The Wrong Trousers” is good, but mostly it doesn’t float my boat, especially “A Close Shave”

Breaking the Waves (1996) — The revolutionary Dogma 95 school of filmmaking washed up on American shores with this intense, European drama. Director Lars von Trier shot in available light, using handheld cameras and no musical score. The result is a nakedly emotional film. Emily Watson plays a na�ve Scotswoman who�s convinced God will heal her paralyzed husband if she has sex with other men. 159 min. [received: 16 Jan 04, watched: 19 Jan 04, returned: 20 Jan 04] A, beautifully filmed but painful to watch Scottish tragedy at its finest — Watson is superb among a strong cast

On 28 January 2004 (10:25 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

Citizen Ruth (1996) — In this satirical look at the abortion issue, Ruth Stoops (Laura Dern), an unfit mother of four, discovers while in jail that she’s pregnant again. The judge charges her with endangering the fetus, but tells her in confidence that he’ll reduce the charges if she has an abortion. When word of this gets out, Ruth gets caught in the middle of a tug-of-war between Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers who want to use Ruth to get their messages across. 102 min. [received: 22 Jan 04, watched: 22 Jan 04, returned: 23 Jan 04] C+, good way to celebrate Roe v. Wade day, but not a great film (J.D. liked the bits he say, though — very funny)

Hilary and Jackie (1998) — Emily Watson stars in this true story about Jacqueline du Pr�, a famed cellist whose glamorous but turbulent life contrasts with the quiet existence of her sister, Hilary (Rachel Griffiths). The close but complicated relationship between the sisters strains to the breaking point as a result of infidelity, jealousy and, finally, illness. Based on Hilary’s controversial memoir, A Genius in the Family. 121 min. [received: 21 Jan 04, watched: 23 Jan 04, returned: 24 Jan 04] B, Kris has no comment (J.D. didn’t watch it)

Life as a House (2001) — Faced with a diagnosis of terminal cancer, George (Kevin Kline) decides to construct a beautiful new house on his land overlooking the Pacific ocean, while at the same time trying to connect with his estranged son (Hayden Christensen). Kristin Scott Thomas and Mary Steenburgen co-star in a dramedy that speaks eloquent volumes about the fragility — and resilience — of the human condition. 125 min. [received: 24 Jan 04, watched: 26 Jan 04, returned: 29 Jan 04] B, filled with cliché, but somehow affecting nonetheless

The Endurance (2000) — In 1914, Sir Ernest Shackleton set sail on the Expedition with 27 men aboard, aiming to cross Antarctica. But when the vessel became stranded in frigid, deep waters, the crew began a battle of the human spirit, testing the limits of endurance as they strove to overcome the debilitating setback. Miraculously, they succeeded, even capturing the experience in pictures and on film. The Endurance celebrates the survivors of this wayward adventure. 97 min. [received: 28 Jan 04, watched: 28 Jan 04, returned: 29 Jan 04] B+, slow and plodding in spots, but mostly a beautifully filmed tale of survival

Altered States (1980) — Manic psychologist William Hurt�s experiments combine sensory deprivation and mind-bending drugs to unlock the inner self. His handiwork shuttles him back and forth on the human evolutionary spectrum — from human to ape-man. Hurt and colleague Blair Brown regurgitate Paddy Chayefsky’s script at hyperspeed (director Ken Russell hated the dialogue but was contractually bound not to change it). 102 min. [received: 28 Jan 04, watched: 28 Jan 04, returned: 29 Jan 04] F, good grief is this film terrible — the screenplay is almost completely inaccessible — so awful we could not finish it

Here are the final numbers for January 2004: We rented fourteen DVDs through Netflix (for an average of $1.43/DVD), and watched a total of 1578 minutes (for an average of 76 cents per hour).

Our cumulative totals through five monhths: We’ve rented 59 DVDs through Netflix (for an average of $1.69/DVD), and watched a total of 7933+ minutes (for an average of 76 cents per hour).

On 08 February 2004 (01:33 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

Seabisbuit (2003) — During the Depression, a former bicycle repairman, Charles Howard (Jeff Bridges), owned a small, knobbly-kneed horse called Seabiscuit. Howard teamed up with half-blind ex-prize-fighter Red Pollard (Tobey Maguire), who became the horse’s jockey, and former “mustang breaker” Tom Smith (Chris Cooper), who became the horse’s trainer. People around the country became fascinated with the story of Seabiscuit, who won Horse of the Year honors in 1938. 141 min. [received: 02 Feb 04, watched: 05 Feb 04, returned: 06 Feb 04] B, better than expected, but not great

The Virgin Suicides (1999) — Responding to the lax moral milieu of the mid-1970s, Mr. and Mrs. Lisbon (James Woods and Kathleen Turner, respectively) keep their five alluring, adolescent daughters on a short leash. When the youngest, 13-year-old Cecelia (Hannah Hall), unaccountably commits hara-kiri and wayward elder sister Lux (Kirsten Dunst) violates curfew, Mom puts all the girls under virtual house arrest. But her overreaction has unintended — and dire — consequences. 97 min. [received: 02 Feb 04, watched: 06 Feb 04, returned: 07 Feb 04] B-, definitely filled with great potential — and I loved the first hour — but ultimately the story doesn’t deliver

Bowling for Columbine (2002) — Famed documentarian and left-wing political humorist Michael Moore tackles the issue of America’s unique obsession with firearms. Taking off from the Columbine High School massacre in April 1999, Moore visits a Michigan bank that gives new customers a free gun, marshals statistics for gun deaths in the U.S. and interviews subjects as diverse as National Rifle Association spokesman Charlton Heston and shock rocker Marilyn Manson. 120 min. [received: 02 Feb 04, watched: 07 Feb 04, returned: 09 Feb 04] A-, the first hour is awesome, though the second hour lags in spots — I love that Moore doesn’t find any answers

On 17 February 2004 (07:26 AM),
J.D. said:

Gormenghast, Disc One (2000) — Based on the series of novels by Mervyn Peake, this fantasy-filled mystery features the glorious castle of Gormenghast, home to the ancient family of Groan and where, through 77 generations, the Groans have been in power. But the dynasty is now threatened by Steerpike (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers), an intelligent, crafty, evil kitchen-boy who is intent on doing things his way, with only the young, timid Earl of Groan to stop him. 174 min. [received: 10 Feb 04, watched: 13 Feb 04, returned: 14 Feb 04] B-, didn’t live up to my expectations, though each epsiode was better than the one before

Gormenghast, Disc Two (2000) — Based on the series of novels by Mervyn Peake, this fantasy-filled mystery features the glorious castle of Gormenghast, home to the ancient family of Groan and where, through 77 generations, the Groans have been in power. But the dynasty is now threatened by Steerpike (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers), an intelligent, crafty, evil kitchen-boy who is intent on doing things his way, with only the young, timid Earl of Groan to stop him. 58 min. [received: 11 Feb 04, watched: 13 Feb 04, returned: 14 Feb 04] B+, more fun than the first three episodes, perhaps because I hadn’t read this part of the story

Gosford Park (2001) — Robert Altman’s fun take on classic 1920s English whodunits makes for a jolly good show. This top-notch celebrity clue game features such stars as Kristin Scott Thomas, Michael Gambon, Ryan Phillippe, Maggie Smith and Jeremy Northam, all of whom meet at a verdant country estate for a weekend of fun and games that ends in murder. Think Agatha Christie meets P.G. Wodehouse. 137 min. [received: 11 Feb 04, watched: 12-15 Feb 04, returned: 17 Feb 04] A-, a fun, very good film with great acting — a little top-heavy at times

On 25 February 2004 (06:11 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

Muriel’s Wedding (1994) — Trapped in the jerkwater town of Porpoise Spit, Australia, chubby misfit Muriel (Toni Collette) finds comfort in listening to ABBA ditties and in her fairy-tale visions of marriage. The opportunity to fulfill her fantasy ultimately comes along in the form of a South African Olympic swimmer (Daniel Lapaine) looking for Aussie citizenship, and Muriel eagerly ties the knot. At long last, her storybook dreams have come true � or have they? 106 min. [received: 17 Feb 04, watched: 19 Feb 04, returned: 21 Feb 04] C+, not a great film, but fun to watch — plus lots of ABBA!

Circle of Friends (1995) — Based on the popular novel by Maeve Binchy, Circle of Friends follows three girlhood friends — modest Benny (Minnie Driver, in a breakthrough performance), loyal Eve (Geraldine O’Rawe) and socially and sexually precocious Nan (Saffron Burrows) — as they experience first love, first kisses and first betrayals. Chris O’Donnell co-stars as Jack, the object of Benny’s shy affection. 103 min. [received: 17 Feb 04, watched: 19 Feb 04, returned: 21 Feb 04] C, pretty mundane, even though I was pre-disposed to like it (I’m a Minnie Driver fan)

Curb Your Enthusiasm, Season One, Vol. One (2000) — Seinfeld co-creator Larry David stars in this off-kilter, oft-improvised comedy series featuring David as a writer with $400 million in the bank who is married to the woman of his dreams, but still finds a way to allow everyday to life baffle and wreak havoc on him. Shot without scripts, the show follows David around Los Angeles, blending reality and fiction to turn some of life’s most banal moments into absolute comedy. 156 min. [received: 21 Feb 04, watched: 21 Feb 04, returned: 23 Feb 04] B-, much potential, and some funny moments, but too many dead spots

On 25 February 2004 (08:54 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

Harold and Maude (1971) — A self-absorbed, death-obsessed teen (Bud Cort) and a geriatric, high-on-life widow (Ruth Gordon) find love in this comical cult favorite. Hassled by his domineering mother (Vivian Pickles) to play the dating game, the morbid Harold would rather attend funerals, which is where he meets the feisty Maude (natch). The seemingly mismatched pair forms a bond that turns into a highly unconventional — but ultimately satisfying — romance. 91 min. [received: 24 Feb 04, watched: 25 Feb 04, returned: 26 Feb 04] B-, I know this is a cult favorite — and it’s not bad — but it’s just not quite my thing

Europa, Europa (1990) — This irony-filled tale is based on the autobiography by Solomon Perel, a Jewish German who changes his name and joins the ranks of Hitler Youth in order to survive the Holocaust after he’s discovered in a Polish orphanage. As he climbs higher in the Nazi ranks, being found out seems nearly inevitable — especially when a gay officer and a severely anti-Semitic girlfriend are too close to discovering some irrefutable, circumcised evidence. 112 min. [received: 24 Feb 04, watched: 25 Feb 04, returned: 26 Feb 04] C-, unique, I’ll grant, but poorly made — perhaps the book is better

On 26 February 2004 (07:58 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002) — Director Phillip Noyce delivers a little movie that scores big. Australia’s government-sponsored integration program in the 1930s ripped apart families and broke many hearts. This film follows three girls who are forcibly removed from their families and sucked into the adoption process. With fierce resolve to return home, the girls follow a rabbit-proof fence that extends for 1,500 miles throughout the western continent. 94 min. [received: 25 Feb 04, watched: 26 Feb 04, returned: 27 Feb 04] A+, fantastic film, absolutely brilliant: gorgeous filmmaking, wonderful child actors, archetypal story, perfect for families — highly recommended

On 29 February 2004 (05:26 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

Thirteen (2003) — Thirteen-year-old Tracy (Evan Rachel Wood) is a good girl. She’s smart, gets along with her mother (Holly Hunter) and is never any trouble. But then she befriends Evie (played by Nikki Reed, who co-wrote the movie), a gorgeous and popular classmate who teaches Tracy to let loose and introduces her to the beguiling world of sex, alcohol, drugs and self-mutilation — much to the horror of Tracy’s friends, relatives and, most of all, her mother. 100 min. [received: 28 Feb 04, watched: 29 Feb 04, returned: 01 Mar 04] A, exquisitely painful — this film is like birth control

Here are the final numbers for February 2004: We rented thirteen DVDs through Netflix (for an average of $1.53/DVD), and watched a total of 1489 minutes (for an average of 80 cents per hour).

Our cumulative totals through six months: We’ve rented 72 DVDs through Netflix (for an average of $1.66/DVD), and watched a total of 9422+ minutes (for an average of 76 cents per hour).

On 08 March 2004 (07:29 AM),
J.D. said:

Freaky Friday (2003) — Jamie Lee Curtis stars as Tess Coleman, mother of 15-year-old Anna (Lindsay Lohan), in this remake of the 1976 comedy starring Jodie Foster. Mother and daughter bicker over everything — what Anna wears, whom she likes and what she wants to do when she’s older. In turn, Anna detests Tess’s fianc� (Mark Harmon). When a magical fortune cookie switches their personalities, they each get a peek at how the other person feels, thinks and lives. 93 min. [received: 28 Feb 04, watched: 01 Mar 04, returned: 02 Mar 04] B, not a great film, but I’ll grant that it’s fun

Welcome to the Dollhouse (1995) — The horrors of junior high are vividly recreated in this darkly comic tale of a painfully unhip seventh grade girl whose classmates’ merciless taunting is only compounded by her dreary, middle-child home life. This hilarious, bittersweet black comedy from writer/director Todd Solondz demonstrates that adolescence isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. 100 min. [received: 02 Mar 04, watched: 02 Mar 04, returned: 03 Mar 04] A, another painful film about adolescence — I knew these kids, I can relate

On 08 March 2004 (07:31 AM),
J.D. said:

American Splendor (2003) — Harvey Pekar (Paul Giamatti) was a working-class stiff, a file clerk who found an outlet for his creativity by chronicling every minutia of his life in Cleveland, Oh., for more than 20 years in a comic-book series called American Splendor. This revealing biopic co-stars Hope Davis and tells Pekar’s story through two-dimensional images, archival footage and more. 98 min. [received: 03 Mar 04, watched: 04 Mar 04, returned: 04 Mar 04] A-, highly entertaining with only a couple of dull spots — some great writing

On 08 March 2004 (07:32 AM),
J.D. said:

Donnie Darko (2001) — Donnie Darko is an edgy, psychological thriller about a suburban teen coming face-to-face with his dark destiny. Jake Gyllenhaal plays a delusional high-school student visited by a demonic rabbit with eerie visions of the past, and deadly predictions for the future. 113 min. [received: 04 Mar 04, watched: 05 Mar 04, returned: 06 Mar 04] A-, I’ll readily admit this film is not for everyone (Kris hated it), but it is for me: I loved it — moody and mysterious and engrossing

Curb Your Enthusiasm, Season One, Vol. Two (2000) — Seinfeld co-creator Larry David stars in this off-kilter, oft-improvised comedy series featuring David as a writer with $400 million in the bank who is married to the woman of his dreams, but still finds a way to allow everyday to life baffle and wreak havoc on him. Shot without scripts, the show follows David around Los Angeles, blending reality and fiction to turn some of life’s most banal moments into absolute comedy. 156 min. [received: 05 Mar 04, watched: 06 Mar 04, returned: 08 Mar 04] B+, these episodes are much better than those on the first disc — I was dying with laughter at many points during “AAMCO” and “Beloved Aunt”

On 16 March 2004 (09:04 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

Dead Man Walking (1995) — Scheduled to be put to death for brutally slaying two teens, Matthew Poncelet (Sean Penn) seeks the aid of activist nun Helen Prejean (Susan Sarandon), a death-penalty opponent. She becomes Matthew’s spiritual adviser and tries to halt the execution, even though Matthew’s professed innocence is dubious. As the execution date draws ever closer, Sister Helen works to save Matthew’s soul by getting him to confess — and to ask divine forgiveness. 122 min. [received: 09 Mar 04, watched: 09 Mar 04, returned: 10 Mar 04] B, summary review

About a Boy (2002) — Will Lightman (Hugh Grant) is a rich, hip, irresponsible Londoner who, in search of available women, invents an imaginary son and starts attending single-parent meetings — confident in both parties’ inability to make a commitment. But when Will meets Marcus, the troubled 12-year-old son of Fiona (Toni Collette), a quirky and unexpected friendship develops as both Will and Marcus help each other grow up. 101 min. [received: 06 Mar 04, watched: 10 Mar 04, returned: 11 Mar 04] B, surprisingly good — it seems I like Nick Hornsby’s stories

Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001) — It’s Monday morning. Bridget (Ren�e Zellweger) has woken up with a headache, a hangover and her boss. Wickedly clever, this tale of Miss Jones’s yearlong odyssey from Mr. Right-here-right-now (Hugh Grant) to Mr. Right (Colin Firth) delivers a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the female mind. Zellweger, Firth and Grant are perfectly cast in this popular adaptation of Helen Fielding’s best-selling novel. 97 min. [received: 12 Mar 04, watched: 13 Mar 04, returned: 15 Mar 04] B, not bad, but not great either — entertaining if a little trite

Signs (2002) — Everything farmer and pastor Graham Hess (Mel Gibson) believed about the world changes when he discovers an intricate pattern of 500-ft. circles carved into his fields. The mysterious markings cause a media frenzy and test Hess’s faith as he journeys to discover their origin. What he finds will forever alter his and his family’s lives. M. Night Shyamalan (The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable) wrote and directed this sci-fi thriller. 106 min. [received: 13 Mar 04, watched: 16 Mar 04, returned: 17 Mar 04] B, M. Night Shyamalan is a clever director, and his writing is strong (often damned funny), but it’s as if some little thing is missing from every script but The Sixth Sense

On 20 March 2004 (10:47 AM),
J.D. Roth said:

Songcatcher (2000) — During a visit to her sister in Appalachia, gifted musicologist Dr. Lily Penleric (Janet McTeer) stumbles upon a musical treasure trove — dozens of Scots-Irish ballads that have been preserved for generations by the local populace and are unknown to the outside world. Intent on collecting the beautiful songs, Dr. Penleric comes to admire the locals, who live a tough, hardscrabble existence without complaint. 109 min. [received: 11 Mar 04, watched: 17 Mar 04, returned: 18 Jan 04] C-, y’know, I was predisposed to like this, but it’s earnest to a fault — nearly collapses under the weight of its Liberal agenda

On 29 March 2004 (10:52 AM),
J.D. said:

Dead Again (1991) — Los Angeles gumshoe Mike Church (Kenneth Branagh) takes the case of a woman (Emma Thompson) beset with amnesia and soon learns that the two are connected (via reincarnation) to a lurid, 40-year-old murder. Branagh is convincing as an American private investigator, and he gets fine support from Thompson (his real-life wife at the time) in this modern noir thriller. 107 min. [received: 18 Mar 04, watched: 26 Mar 04, returned: 27 Mar 04] C, moments are good but the final climax is silly and the acting is, well, strange (and Branagh’s accent is bizarre)

On 29 March 2004 (10:55 AM),
J.D. said:

Eat Drink Man Woman (1994) — Widower Tao Chu, Taiwan’s most famous chef, struggles with accepting his three daughters’ newfound appetite for boys, an interest that begins to break the family apart with hilarious and often touching results. 123 min. [received: 20 Mar 04, watched: 27 Mar 04, returned: 29 Mar 04] B+, a very nice film full of typical Ang Lee repressed emotions and subtle performances — I love all the Asian food imagery

On 29 March 2004 (11:03 AM),
J.D. said:

The Sweet Hereafter (1997) — A high-profile lawyer uncovers a tangled web of lies, deceit and forbidden desires as he brings a class-action lawsuit on behalf of a grieving community. 112 min. [received: 20 Mar 04, watched: 28 Mar 04, returned: 29 Mar 04] A-, a sweet and haunting film cut through with pain

Here are the final numbers for March 2004: We rented thirteen DVDs through Netflix (for an average of $1.53/DVD), and watched a total of 1437 minutes (for an average of 83 cents per hour).

On 09 April 2004 (07:30 AM),
J.D. said:

Homicide: Life on the Streets Season Four, Disc One (1995) — Based on a book by David Simon, this intense police drama has a storied pedigree, earning numerous Emmy, Writer’s Guild and George Foster Peabody Awards for its cerebral plotlines, smart dialogue, showcase acting and riveting camerawork. Andre Braugher (as Det. Frank Pembleton), who stayed for all but one season, led a stellar cast that included Richard Belzer, Daniel Baldwin, Ned Beatty and more. This disc includes the following episodes: “Fire (Part 1)”, “Fire (Part 2)”, “Autofocus”, and “A Doll’s Eyes”. 188 min. [received: 30 Mar 04, watched: 01 Apr 04, returned: 03 Apr 04] A-, good episodes all around — I like the new characters

Homicide: Life on the Streets Season Four, Disc Two (1995) — Based on a book by David Simon, this intense police drama has a storied pedigree, earning numerous Emmy, Writer’s Guild and George Foster Peabody Awards for its cerebral plotlines, smart dialogue, showcase acting and riveting camerawork. Andre Braugher (as Det. Frank Pembleton), who stayed for all but one season, led a stellar cast that included Richard Belzer, Daniel Baldwin, Ned Beatty and more. This disc includes the following episodes: “Heartbeat”, “Hate Crimes”, and “Thrill of the Kill”. 144 min. [received: 31 Mar 04, watched: 02 Apr 04, returned: 03 Apr 04] A-, another set of good episodes

Shine (1996) — A riveting profile of Australian keyboard virtuoso David Helfgott (Geoffrey Rush) and his ultimate triumph over a domineering, abusive father (Armin Mueller-Stahl); schizophrenia; and an obsession with the all but unplayable Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto No. 3. Sir John Gielgud, superb as ever, plays Helfgott’s tutor. Richly deserved Oscars went to Rush (Best Actor) and to Mueller-Stahl for his supporting turn. 105 min. [received: 03 Apr 04, watched: 05 Apr 04, returned: 07 Apr 04] B, though it starts slowly, this film builds to a satisfying crescendo — Rush deserves his Oscar

Homicide: Life on the Streets Season Four, Disc Three (1995) — Based on a book by David Simon, this intense police drama has a storied pedigree, earning numerous Emmy, Writer’s Guild and George Foster Peabody Awards for its cerebral plotlines, smart dialogue, showcase acting and riveting camerawork. Andre Braugher (as Det. Frank Pembleton), who stayed for all but one season, led a stellar cast that included Richard Belzer, Daniel Baldwin, Ned Beatty and more. This disc includes the following episodes: “Sniper (Part 1)”, “Sniper (Part 2)”, “Full Moon”, and “For God and Country”. 188 min. [received: 06 Apr 04, watched: 08 Apr 04, returned: 09 Apr 04] C+, an awful episode (“Sniper (Part 2)”), a boring episode (“Full Moon”), and a run-of-the-mill episode (“For God and Country”) make this a weak disc in the series

On 12 April 2004 (07:52 AM),
J.D. said:

Homicide: Life on the Streets Season Four, Disc Four (1995) — Based on a book by David Simon, this intense police drama has a storied pedigree, earning numerous Emmy, Writer’s Guild and George Foster Peabody Awards for its cerebral plotlines, smart dialogue, showcase acting and riveting camerawork. Andre Braugher (as Det. Frank Pembleton), who stayed for all but one season, led a stellar cast that included Richard Belzer, Daniel Baldwin, Ned Beatty and more. This disc includes the following episodes: “The Hat”, “I’ve Got a Secret”, “Justice (Part 1)”, and “Justice (Part 2)”. 188 min. [received: 06 Apr 04, watched: 09 Apr 04, returned: 10 Apr 04] B, average Homicide, but even average Homicide is pretty good

Homicide: Life on the Streets Season Four, Disc Five (1995) — Based on a book by David Simon, this intense police drama has a storied pedigree, earning numerous Emmy, Writer’s Guild and George Foster Peabody Awards for its cerebral plotlines, smart dialogue, showcase acting and riveting camerawork. Andre Braugher (as Det. Frank Pembleton), who stayed for all but one season, led a stellar cast that included Richard Belzer, Daniel Baldwin, Ned Beatty and more. This disc includes the following episodes: “Stakeout”, “Map of the Heart”, “Requiem for Adena”, and “The Damage Done”. 188 min. [received: 10 Apr 04, watched: 11 Apr 04, returned: 12 Apr 04] B+, though “Map of the Heart” is both bizarre and weak, the other episodes on this disc are good, and one of them — “The Damage Done” — is the best episode since the first season’s “Three Men and Adena” (it’s a truly great piece of television)

On 26 April 2004 (08:31 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

Homicide: Life on the Streets Season Four, Disc Six (1995) — Based on a book by David Simon, this intense police drama has a storied pedigree, earning numerous Emmy, Writer’s Guild and George Foster Peabody Awards for its cerebral plotlines, smart dialogue, showcase acting and riveting camerawork. Andre Braugher (as Det. Frank Pembleton), who stayed for all but one season, led a stellar cast that included Richard Belzer, Daniel Baldwin, Ned Beatty and more. This disc includes the following episodes: “The Wedding”, “Scene of the Crime”, and “Work Related”. 144 min. [received: 13 Apr 04, watched: 16 Apr 04, returned: 17 Apr 04] B-, a bizarre set of episodes to wrap up the season

On 26 April 2004 (08:31 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

Capturing the Friedmans (2003) — A family in crisis is “captured” through real home video. The Friedmans, an average upper-middle-class Jewish family in Great Neck, NY, found their world turned upside down when the father and son were charged with child molestation in 1987. The media inundated the airwaves with coverage of the alleged crime, but some of the best footage was shot by the family themselves — seen publicly for the first time in this documentary. 107 min. [received: 13 Apr 04, watched: 16 Apr 04, returned: 17 Apr 04] A-, with challenging subject matter, this film presents thought-provoking questions with only a bit of a bias: well-done

Alias Season One, Disc One (2001) — Few TV shows are as mystifying and fascinating as this ABC series starring Jennifer Garner. As Sydney Bristow, a grad student who’s also a double agent for the CIA and one of its adversaries, SD-6, Garner transforms herself — literally and figuratively — from a rookie into a veteran agent as she contorts through every plot twist and outrageous costume thrown her way. Victor Garber and Michael Vartan co-star. This disc includes the following episodes: “Truth Be Told”, “So It Begins…”, “Parity”, “A Broken Heart”. 180 min. [received: 14 Apr 04, watched: 19 Apr 04, returned: 20 Apr 04] A-, surprisingly entertaining — Kris likes the female spy because she kicks ass, I like her because she’s sexy! :)

The Office Series Two (2002) — The workplace depicted in this six-part BBC series is as dysfunctional as it gets. David Brent (Ricky Gervais), office manager of nondescript Wernham-Hogg in Slough, is at once zany, clueless, and mortifying. David likes to drink, divulge deeply personal information at odd moments, read his poetry, and make a fool of himself in front of his team, which is made up of Gareth the sycophant, Tim the sensitive guy, flirtatious Donna, and many others. (Note: that description, from Netflix, sucks — it’s inaccurate in many respects.) 180 min. [received: 20 Apr 04, watched: 21 Apr 04, returned: 24 Apr 04] A-, very, very funny, more consistent than the first series, and the bonus material is great, too

On 26 April 2004 (08:32 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

Bottle Rocket (1996) — Three best friends attempt to escape their suburban boredom through a life of crime. But, these bickering, bumbling thieves are no match for the local ‘godfather’ who leads them into the biggest heist of their careers. 92 min. [received: 24 Apr 04, watched: 26 Apr 04, returned: 27 Apr 04] C+, a strange little film, probably unwatchable for most folks, but filled with great writerly touches that endear it to me

On 26 April 2004 (08:32 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

Alias Season One, Disc Two (2001) — Few TV shows are as mystifying and fascinating as this ABC series starring Jennifer Garner. As Sydney Bristow, a grad student who’s also a double agent for the CIA and one of its adversaries, SD-6, Garner transforms herself — literally and figuratively — from a rookie into a veteran agent as she contorts through every plot twist and outrageous costume thrown her way. Victor Garber and Michael Vartan co-star. This disc includes the following episodes: “Doppelganger”, “Reckoning”, “Color-Blind”, and “Time Will Tell”. 180 min. [received: 22 Apr 04, watched: 26 Apr 04, returned: 27 Apr 04] B, some subplots start dragging the show down, but I still dig the actual spy missions — give me more of those and less of the X-Filesesque mythology building (I loved X-Files for its stories, but hated the overall storyline)

On 04 May 2004 (09:46 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

Alias Season One, Disc Three (2001) — Few TV shows are as mystifying and fascinating as this ABC series starring Jennifer Garner. As Sydney Bristow, a grad student who’s also a double agent for the CIA and one of its adversaries, SD-6, Garner transforms herself — literally and figuratively — from a rookie into a veteran agent as she contorts through every plot twist and outrageous costume thrown her way. Victor Garber and Michael Vartan co-star. This disc includes the following episodes: “Time Will Tell, “Mea Culpa”, “Spirit”, and “The Confession”. 180 min. [received: 22 Apr 04, watched: 30 Apr 04, returned: 30 Apr 04] B, still rather soap opera-esque, but some of the action scenes are great, and I love the spy stories lost in return mail

That’s a lot of DVDs for one month. Two of them — the last Alias disc and Bottle Rocket — never made it back to Netflix for some reason. They were mailed from work, both in the same envelope. It’s been a week, and still Netflix doesn’t have them. They have a system set up whereby they don’t charge members for lost discs so long as it doesn’t become a pattern. I like that.

Here are the final numbers for April 2004: We rented thirteen DVDs through Netflix (for an average of $1.53/DVD), and watched a total of 2064 minutes (for an average of 58 cents per hour).

On 04 May 2004 (09:57 PM),
J.D. Roth said:

Love Actually (2003) — An ensemble comedy that tells 10 separate (but intertwining) London love stories, leading to a big climax on Christmas Eve. One of the threads follows the brand-new, unmarried Prime Minister (Hugh Grant) of the United Kingdom, who, on his first day in 10 Downing Street, falls in love with the girl (Martine McCutcheon) who brings him his tea. Denise Richards, Alan Rickman, Keira Knightley and Rowan Atkinson co-star. 135 min. [received: 04 May 04, watched: 04 May 04, returned: 05 May 04] A-, sap, yes, but brilliantly conceived sap featuring complex explorations of love in all its many forms — it’s great to see love explored as more than just a cliché

On 20 May 2004 (08:48 AM),
J.D. said:

Alias Season One, Disc Four (2001) — Few TV shows are as mystifying and fascinating as this ABC series starring Jennifer Garner. As Sydney Bristow, a grad student who’s also a double agent for the CIA and one of its adversaries, SD-6, Garner transforms herself — literally and figuratively — from a rookie into a veteran agent as she contorts through every plot twist and outrageous costume thrown her way. Victor Garber and Michael Vartan co-star. This disc includes the following episodes: “The Coup”, “Page 47”, and “The Prophecy”. 135 min. [received: 05 May 04, watched: 08 May 04, returned: 10 May 04] A-, a nice set of episodes actually

The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999) — To be young and carefree amid sun-drenched Italy’s blue waters and idyllic landscape in the late 1950s: That’s la dolce vita that Tom Ripley (Matt Damon) craves and Dickie Greenleaf (Jude Law) leads. 139 min. [received: 05 May 04, watched: 09 May 04, returned: 10 May 04] B, another strange film, wholly unusual in that the protagonist is the bad guy

The Fog of War (2003) — Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara worked for both Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, playing a key role in shaping both administrations’ approaches to the Vietnam War. This Oscar-winning documentary directed by Errol Morris traces McNamara’s career from government to the World Bank; but it’s his work during the Vietnam years that’s highlighted in this film, which features extensive archival footage and interviews. 107 min. [received: 14 May 04, watched: 19 May 04, returned: 20 May 04] A+, an outstanding film — should be required viewing for everyone

On 01 June 2004 (10:46 AM),
J.D. said:

Alias Season One, Disc Five (2001) — Few TV shows are as mystifying and fascinating as this ABC series starring Jennifer Garner. As Sydney Bristow, a grad student who’s also a double agent for the CIA and one of its adversaries, SD-6, Garner transforms herself — literally and figuratively — from a rookie into a veteran agent as she contorts through every plot twist and outrageous costume thrown her way. Victor Garber and Michael Vartan co-star. This disc includes the following episodes: “Q&A”, “Masquerade”, and “Snowman”. 135 min. [received: 14 May 04, watched: 25 May 04, returned: 27 May 04] C, dull and soap-opera-esque, the Alias mythology takes front stage here, and it’s not good

Ripley’s Game (2002) — Mr. Ripley’s got game … deadly game! With a mind as sharp as his throwing knives, it’s child’s play for Ripley (John Malkovich) to manipulate an innocent family man into becoming a cold-blooded assassin. But Ripley’s intricately planned game of murder could spin out of control with the arrival of a gang of Russian mobsters intent on extracting their own pound of flesh. Stars Dougray Scott. 110 min. [received: 25 May 04, watched: 26 May 04, returned: 27 May 04] C, standard stuff — there’s the germ of something good here, but the film doesn’t do a good job of carrying on from The Talented Mr. Ripley

Alias Season One, Disc Six (2001) — Few TV shows are as mystifying and fascinating as this ABC series starring Jennifer Garner. As Sydney Bristow, a grad student who’s also a double agent for the CIA and one of its adversaries, SD-6, Garner transforms herself — literally and figuratively — from a rookie into a veteran agent as she contorts through every plot twist and outrageous costume thrown her way. Victor Garber and Michael Vartan co-star. This disc includes the following episodes: “The Solution”, “Rendezvous”, and “Almost Thirty Years”. 135 min. [received: 28 May 04, watched: 28 May 04, returned: 29 May 04] A, I’d been ready to give up on this series after the previous disc, but I was shocked by how good this one was: it tied the mythology (which I normally hate) into compelling spy stories, and managed to join nearly every loose thread — great stuff

On 01 June 2004 (10:55 AM),
J.D. said:

Requiem For a Dream (2000) — No middle ground here; you’ll either love or hate Requiem for a Dream. Jared Leto, Jennifer Connelly and Marlon Wayans are best friends and amateur drug dealers looking for a big score. Trouble is, they’re their own best customers. As they descend into the nightmarish hell of addiction, Leto’s mother (Oscar-nominee Ellen Burstyn) also finds herself hooked on barbiturates. Not for the squeamish. 102 min. [received: 08 May 04, watched: 28 May 04, returned: 29 May 04] A, strong stuff, exploring addictions of all sorts from a variety of angles; Kris says, “Anyone who thinks drugs should be legalized ought to be forced to watch this film.”

Freaks and Geeks: The Complete Series Disc One (2000) — Set in a suburban Detroit high school in the early 1980s, this Emmy-nominated drama focuses on the lives of two groups of teens who don’t live in the fabricated, glossy world that most TV shows depict as “normal.” No, Lindsay Weir (Linda Cardellini) and her brother Sam (John Francis Daly) live in the reality of being less-than-popular that most Americans remember — or try to forget — about their high school years. This disc includes the following episodes: The Pilot, “Beers and Weirs”, and “Tricks and Treats”. 135 min. [received: 29 May 04, watched: 30 May 04, returned: 01 June 04] A, this is fantastic stuff: great acting, great writing, great directing — it does a spot-on job of capturing what it was like to be in high school during the early eighties

All the house-related stuff distracted us from Netflix this month, but still we watched nine discs. Here are the final numbers for May 2004: We rented nine DVDs through Netflix (for an average of $2.22/DVD), and watched a total of 1133 minutes (for an average of $1.06 per hour).

On 30 August 2004 (11:20 AM),
J.D. said:

Because of our move, I stopped keeping Netflix records. Fortunately, Netflix itself keeps records for us. So, here are the DVDs we’ve rented in the past few months. (A few of these, from the middle of August, were rented by Nick, but are included here because they were on our account.)

I’m not providing detailed information or reviews for these. I’ll resume that with our current batch of discs.

June
Monster, Freaks and Geeks (disc two), Alias season two (disc one), American Movie, Alias season two (disc two), Freaks and Geeks (disc three), City of God, Curb Your Enthusiasm season two (disc one), Curb Your Enthusiasm season two (disc two), Interview with the Vampire, Alias season two (disc three)
Best: City of God, Worst: Alias season two (disc three), Discs Watched: 11, Minutes Watched: 1576, $/Disc: $2.00, $/hour: $0.84

July
Alias season two (disc four), Run Lola Run, Freaks and Geeks (disc four), Six Feet Under season two (disc one), Freaks and Geeks (disc five), Alias season two (disc five), Alias season two (disc six), Freaks and Geeks (disc six)
Best: Alias season two (disc four), Worst: Six Feet Under season two (disc one), Discs Watched: 8, Minutes Watched: 1055, $/Disc: $2.75, $/hour: $1.25

August
Six Feet Under season two (disc two), Best of Travels in Europe with Rick Steves: Italy, My Voyage to Italy (disc one), My Voyage to Italy (disc two), Discovering Italy, The Italians, Ancient Civilizations: Rome and Pompeii, Helena: First Pilgrim to the Holy Land, Rome: Power and Glory (disc one), 13 Going on 30
Best: 13 Going on 30, Worst: Helena: First Pilgrim to the Holy Land, Discs Watched: 10, Minutes Watched: 1391, $/Disc: $2.20, $/hour: $0.95

And that brings us to the end of our first year of Netflix. In this first year, we watched 136 DVDs totaling 18,078 minutes (or 301 hours, or 12-1/2 days). Our average cost was $1.81/disc (or $0.81/hour).

Coming soon: superhero movies, Japanese films, some classics, and Alias season three!

On 02 September 2004 (10:41 AM),
J.D. said:

Horatio Hornblower (Disc One: The Duel) (1998) — The epic saga of legendary seafaring hero Horatio Hornblower (powerfully portrayed by Ioan Gruffud) comes to swashbuckling life in these epic films based on C.S. Forester’s classic novels. As the Napoleonic wars rage, Hornblower suvives battle after battle, evades capture, and works his way up the ranks in the king’s royal navy. With danger at every turn and unending adventures, Hornblower must use every ounce of his wit and courage to prevail. 93 min. [received: 25 Aug 04, watched: 01 Sep 04, returned: 02 Sep 04] B+, not bad, not bad; Kris says Hornblower is “so much better than Captain Jack Aubrey”

On 03 September 2004 (07:49 AM),
J.D. said:

The Station Agent (2003) — When his only friend dies, a young dwarf named Finbar McBride (Peter Dinklage) relocates to an abandoned train station in rural New Jersey, intent on living the life of a hermit. But his solitude is soon interrupted by his colorful neighbors, which include a struggling artist (Patricia Clarkson) coping with the recent death of her young son, and a talkative Cuban hot dog vendor (Bobby Cannavale). 89 min. [received: 28 Aug 04, watched: 02 Sep 04, returned: 03 Sep 04] A-, moody and unexplainable, but good, though lacking some essential spark

On 07 September 2004 (07:54 AM),
J.D. said:

Good Bye Lenin! (2003) — In East Germany in 1989, Alex Kerner’s (Daniel Bruhl) mother Christiane (Katrin Sass) falls into a coma just as the Berlin Wall is about to come down. Eight months later, she wakes up, but her heart is too weak to withstand any great shock. So Alex goes to great (and often hysterical) lengths to keep the truth about her country’s reform a secret. This widely praised, Golden Globe-nominated comedy played in festivals around the world. 121 min. [received: 24 Aug 04, watched: 03 Sep 04, returned: 07 Sep 04] C-, WTF? This film fails to elevate its absurd premise; it’s almost painful to watch. And it’s dull!

On 07 September 2004 (07:58 AM),
J.D. said:

Frida (2002) — Julie Taymor directs this Oscar-winning biopic of Mexican painter Frida Kahlo (Salma Hayek), focusing on her often rocky relationship with husband Diego Rivera (Alfred Molina). Also known for her controversial political and sexual reputation (she was a communist and a bisexual), Frida struggled with a life of wracking pain following an accident, the amputation of a leg, and finally, drug and alcohol abuse that killed her at age 47. 123 min. [received: 04 Sep 04, watched: 05 Sep 04, returned: 07 Sep 04] B+, perhaps overlong in spots, and sometimes without direction, this film is nevertheless worthwhile: simply gorgeous costumes and sets — a visual feast

Comfort Films

Metafilter‘s not dead yet; occasionally it can produce gems such as this thread on “the greatest one-liner in the history of film”.

As I considered my favorite one-liners, I realized most of them are from my comfort films — those films that I watch again and again and again, that I watch to take the sting off a bad day, that I watch just to kill time. These aren’t the best films ever made, but they’re my favorites.

This being the internet, I wondered if it was possible to find the scripts for each of my comfort films. Sure enough:

  • This is Spinal Tap — “This one goes to eleven.”
  • The Big Lebowski — positively filled with memorable quotes, such as: “Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.”
  • When Harry Met Sally — “I’d like the pie heated and I don’t want the ice cream on top, I want it on the side, and I’d like strawberry instead of vanilla if you have it, if not then no ice cream just whipped cream but only if it’s real; if it’s out of the can then nothing.”
  • The Princess Bride — “INCONCEIVABLE!! “
  • Monty Python and the Holy Grail — “Strange women lyin’ in ponds distributin’ swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!”
  • Buckaroo Banzai— “Evil! Pure and simple from the eighth dimension!”
  • Joe Versus the Volcano — “I’m a flibbertigibbet.”
  • Alien — “Ash, that transmission — Mother’s deciphered part of it. It doesn’t look like an S.O.S.”
  • Blade Runner — “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.”
  • Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan — “Khaaaaaaannn!!!”

The only script I couldn’t locate was for the recent Amelie; there’s probably a French script out there someplace.

I’ve been craving the seriously underrated (and misunderstood) Joe Versus the Volcano lately; I need to watch it soon.

Joe Versus the Volcano resources from around the web:

Kris’ favorite comfort film? Hopscotch.

Comments


On 13 March 2003 (09:20 AM),
Buckaroo Banzai said:

Remember, no matter where you go, there you are.



On 13 March 2003 (10:16 AM),
Dave said:

“Joe versus the Volcano”? I just don’t get your fascination with it. You keep mentioning it, and although it was on one of the cable channels a weekend or two ago, I could only get through a limited portion of it (although the part where he leaves his employment was amusing in a tragic way given it’s obvious attempt to analogize to post-Industrial work compartmentalization). For some reason it reminds me of that Harrison Ford/Anne Heche movie, “Six Days, Seven Nights”. And no, that’s not a favorable comparison. Still, I’ve generally agreed with most of your comments on movies (and yes, the hobbits DO get their rocks from the Ent, damnit!) so perhaps I’ll check it out some evening.

Is this your favorite movie? I notice that you’ve listed Kris’ favorite “comfort” movie, but didn’t make a similar comment regarding J v. Vol. Although it would seem somewhat uncharacteristic, my preference in movies runs straight to “Amadeus”, which to my mind competes directly with “Dangerous Liasons” for my favorite movie, comfort or otherwise.



On 13 March 2003 (10:37 AM),
J.D. said:

My favorite movie is West Side Story, though Dr. Zhivago is a close second. Other favorites include Magnolia and Being John Malkovich.

The movies I listed above are favorites, but the list was meant to highlight comfort films.

I tend to like films that my friends don’t care for. How many of you like Farewell My Concubine? How many of you have even seen it?

Dana and I (and to an extent, Joel and I) have had a conversation about the difference between “favorite” and “best”.

I don’t think anyone could claim, for example, that Buckaroo Banzai is a good film, but it’s still one of my favorites.

Dana likes truly goofy stuff. Time Bandits? Yuck! :)



On 13 March 2003 (04:35 PM),
Dana said:

“I’ll tell you one thing…. No matter where we go, we’re taking this luggage.”
Joe vs. the Volcano

“Oh, so that’s what an invisible barrier looks like.”
Time Bandits

(In my defense, Terry Gilliam has stated that Time Bandits, Brazil, and Baron Munchausen make up a metaphorical trilogy of related works. So, Nyah! :) )

“I find that a modicum of snuff can be quite efficacious.”
Baron Munchausen

“You seem a decent fellow. I hate to kill you.”
“You seem a decent fellow. I’d hate to die.”
The Princess Bride

“Why is there a watermelon there?”
“I’ll tell you later.”
The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai: Across the 8th Dimension

“Once again we see that Evil triumphs over Good, because Good is Dumb!”
Spaceballs

“No way, eh! Radiation has made me an enemy of civilization!”
Strange Brew

“Throw me the idol! I’ll throw you the whip!”
Raiders of the Lost Ark

“And then, I saw the most disgusting thing…Laslo Holleyfeld in his pajamas.”
Real Genius

“Look; we’ve been over this. Lance Hunt wears glasses. He can’t be Captain Amazing.”
Mystery Men

“I have a bad feeling about this.”
Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, The Return of the Jedi, The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones

“You know; for the kids!”
The Hudsucker Proxy

“Damn! We’re in a tight spot!”
Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?

“Strange things are afoot at the Circle K.”
Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure

“End of Line”
Tron

“Listen! Do you smell something?”
Ghostbusters

“…[W]hat is your quest?”
“I must kill a man.”
“Tell me–does this walking corpse have a name?”
Ladyhawke

“Why is that cork there?”
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels

“A bear in his natural habitat. A Studebaker!”
The Muppet Movie

“We’ll catch them red handed!”
“What color are their hands now?”
The Great Muppet Caper

“You activate it and leave it on the ground. Anybody that picks it up is vaporized.”
“Why would anybody pick it up?”
“Look.”
Turns the grenade over to show the words pick me up written in large letters.
Mom and Dad Save the World

“I don’t know. It’s a mystery!”
Shakespeare in Love

I could go on, but it’s time to go home from ‘work’ :)



On 13 March 2003 (08:44 PM),
Nikchick said:

It’s wonderful to see someone else with an appreciation for Joe Versus the Volcano. Really like that movie.

Nicole



On 14 March 2003 (09:34 AM),
J.D. said:

Testing…I’m trying to post a new entry, but Movable Type won’t load. Do comments work?



On 14 March 2003 (10:05 AM),
joelah said:

Whassa matter with Time Bandits? Not a happy enough ending for you, you Amelie-loving Broadway Boy?



On 14 March 2003 (03:28 PM),
Dana said:

How does Time Bandits not have a happy ending?

  • Evil is defeated
  • The ‘robbers’ get their jobs back
  • Kevin’s more or less ignorant, shallow, parents are no longer a bother
  • Og is no longer a pig
  • Fidget is resurrected
  • Kevin has met the Supreme Being
  • Agamemnon is a fireman

Seems pretty happy to me :)



On 14 March 2003 (05:03 PM),
J.D. said:

My problem with Time Bandits is just that I don’t like it. It’s a personal preference thing. I like Brazil (and have it on my Amazon wish list), and think Munchausen is okay, but Time Bandits is tedious. The story isn’t compelling. And, worst of all, it’s got midgets. It’s rare that I like a movie with midgets. I’m sizeist.



On 14 March 2003 (07:01 PM),
Scott said:

Sorry I am a day late on this one.

JD – I am a huge Joe fan. I cannot begin to tell you how much I’ve enjoyed that film – everthing from the obvious but often missed sight gags to the layers of metaphor – it’s the good soil for a playground of diversion. Anyway, it’s good to know at least some of us appreciate the truly underappreciated JOE!!!