|
|
Post by CynanMachae on Mar 21, 2005 17:57:47 GMT -5
Me...my school was blechy blechy. I coulda done home better, but that would still bring up the major problem of I like to be social...and there are no social crowds there or at home... OK sorry for getting off the subject but I just saw this post... Amodman, I HATE it when people say that homeschoolers are not social... and you have to be the quidzillionth person to say what you said to me in the last week! I'm going to find where you live and come throttle you... ;D Okay, back to movies... |
|
amodman
Mabinog
[M:395]
The Nightcrawler
Posts: 226
|
Post by amodman on Mar 22, 2005 3:08:54 GMT -5
Umm, I never said not social. I said you lack the great opportunity you do at school to be social. Most people's young lives revolved around what happened at school and many of their oldest establishments of firm friends are from there. I know from crappy priv school that friends and social opportunities are much harder to come by when you only go to school with a few people your own age! I also had the lovely opportunity to be complained at by a home-schooled girl how lucky I was to have other people to see at chool  (which I actually had none...all my friends are from elsewhere, not my school). edit: Oh, and Signs isn't R. That's like one of my top 3 or 5 movies, so I would know. It's PG-13. Everything from M. Night Shyamalan that I know of is PG-13. |
|
|
|
Post by Riothamus on Mar 22, 2005 8:54:29 GMT -5
Isn't Robots from FOX? "Creators of Ice Age" and all that?  I'm not certain it's been spoken on, yet, but I just saw King Arthur (in fullscreen, alas,) and had to get my thoughts down on it. Once in a while it does one good to see a movie one thorougly detests. King Arthur is just such a movie. Things I hated: 1. The history. Um.... there wasn't any. Everytime they touched on verifiable historical incidents, they botched it up. (Pelagius, for instance, died of old age, and his "heresy"--assuming it was indeed his  --was a theological--not socio-political--insistance on free will.) By the way, the film makers had absolutely no idea of the difference between free will and providence; they made one up, instead. And, as the arrow-in-the-tree-killing-the-traitor moment shows, even the director was willing to believe in some form of poetic justice, or providence. But it's all so muddled, at any rate, that one shouldn't bother about it. 2. King Arthur. Um.... he wasn't in it. Some guy named Arthur, with all of his French-named knights (what's up with that?) rides around with a sword, but nowhere do we get an idea how the incidents of the movie grow into legend. For one thing, all the legend--except an extraordinarily cheesy variation of the sword-in-stone thing--is gone, replaced with a wholecloth fabrication. And he's supposed to be heroic, this pompous windbag, when he walls up a couple of crazy priests and leaves 'em to the Saxons. So it seems he's humanistic and caring about everyone except churchmen. 3. The script. Long, pretentious (who would think I can complain of pretentiousness?) speeches about something (we're never told what,) called "freedom." All men are free. Yeah, sure, but I notice this faux-Arthur is a King at the end. There's so much else that I'll put it all in point four: 4. The movie. Between setting up straw-churchmen, and a final battle that rips off several movies without ever being as good (the fight with the head Saxon was like The Patriot redux. Except not as good,) and forced romance between Arthur and Guenny-dear (where she comes on so strong that it's as if she thinks, "I have only fifteen minutes--three five minute scenes--to get this Arthur guy to like me so we can have our big scene. I had better make each second count....") there's really not that much to like about this piece of drek (though I see that Ebert and Roeper gave two thumbs up--why, I can't imagine.) Things I liked: The ice-battle. Should have been in a better movie. Ick. I write longer about movies I dislike than about movies I like.... [However, I liked that post so much, I am now cribbing it for my 'blog. ;D ] |
|
amodman
Mabinog
[M:395]
The Nightcrawler
Posts: 226
|
Post by amodman on Mar 22, 2005 21:36:28 GMT -5
I didn't like Aurthur either...but my friends did for some strange crazy as hell reason. But I'll give it this, it wasn't near as bad as Alexander  . |
|
|
|
Post by Riothamus on Mar 25, 2005 8:16:14 GMT -5
The Village--I suppose I'm a Shyamafan now. I've read some pretty harsh things about the movie, and some of them are true: the speech-patterns are absurd, the characters are flat (though Jeffery Overstreet at lookingcloser.org argues that they're meant to be,) the twist is not properly prepared for, emotionally, and not everything is tied up quite as tightly as one could wish (why were the monsters killing the animals, for instance?) But far be it from me to join the ranks of detractors; there's much to like. Shyamalan is a master of suspense (though when one doesn't care for many of the characters, it gets a bit flat,) and has an eye for beautiful images. The idea behind the film is great, if clumsily executed, and really speaks to me personally. It certainly isn't The Sixth Sense or Unbreakable--but it isn't meant to be, really. It's a thoughtful fable about authority and fear, and I count myself among its supporters.
That's it. The last film of the Shyamalan crop (post-Sixth Sense)--I've seen 'em all. At least, until Life of Pi.
[Ooh, correction! Until The Lady in the Water. Link below. Or rather, link's in the link....
lookingcloser.blogspot.com
How does one do those handy one-word links on this board? Putting the whole thing stretches the schreen. Twyrch? Anyone?]
|
|
|
|
Post by CynanMachae on Mar 28, 2005 21:12:03 GMT -5
edit: Oh, and Signs isn't R. That's like one of my top 3 or 5 movies, so I would know. It's PG-13. Everything from M. Night Shyamalan that I know of is PG-13. Really? On the back of the DVD I saw it said "R"... |
|
|
|
Post by CynanMachae on Mar 28, 2005 21:14:29 GMT -5
The Village-- How does one do those handy one-word links on this board? Putting the whole thing stretches the schreen. Twyrch? Anyone?] With "thebricktestament.com" I just went to the site, copied and pasted into my post... |
|
|
|
Post by dinadan on Mar 28, 2005 22:26:59 GMT -5
why were the monsters killing the animals, for instance? The "monsters" (plural) weren't killing the animals. Noah killed the animals because he was mentally ill and enjoyed inflicting pain--that's what William Hurt's character meant when he said to Noah's parents at the end "Your son has made our stories real" (paraphrased). The town leaders, when going monstering, probably killed an animal to paint the doors with--which might be how Noah first got the idea (I wonder if he saw them once--obv, he's old enough to maybe have been born before they set up the colony). But their goal was to keep the Village going; Noah was unwell and did what he did because he delighted in being malicious. |
|
amodman
Mabinog
[M:395]
The Nightcrawler
Posts: 226
|
Post by amodman on Mar 28, 2005 23:28:18 GMT -5
*WARNING: SPOILERS*The "monsters" (plural) weren't killing the animals. Noah killed the animals because he was mentally ill and enjoyed inflicting pain--that's what William Hurt's character meant when he said to Noah's parents at the end "Your son has made our stories real" (paraphrased). The town leaders, when going monstering, probably killed an animal to paint the doors with--which might be how Noah first got the idea (I wonder if he saw them once--obv, he's old enough to maybe have been born before they set up the colony). But their goal was to keep the Village going; Noah was unwell and did what he did because he delighted in being malicious. Wow, I didn't even pick up on that... |
|
|
|
Post by Riothamus on Mar 31, 2005 8:57:00 GMT -5
Hmm.... I thought that at first, but I thought a
SPOILERS
Rogue elder was responsable for a lot of the stuff, which is why I disconnected the killings from Noah. But it makes sense. I guess it's already time for another viewing.
|
|
amodman
Mabinog
[M:395]
The Nightcrawler
Posts: 226
|
Post by amodman on Apr 3, 2005 20:18:25 GMT -5
Hmm.... I thought that at first, but I thought a SPOILERSRogue elder was responsable for a lot of the stuff, which is why I disconnected the killings from Noah. But it makes sense. I guess it's already time for another viewing. MORE VILLAGE SPOILERS My thought was rogue elder s. It still just doesn't seem likely one person was doing it all...but Noah's fricking insane! |
|
|
|
Post by Riothamus on May 4, 2005 14:07:02 GMT -5
The Patriot--Mel Gibson fights for freedom. Again. Solid bit of work, bloody, tearful in spots. Unfortunately, it doesn't focus on what made the American Revolution so interesting. Revolutionary battles were pretty boring, at least, in my estimation. It was the ideas that motivated the colonials which add spice to the era. However, with the exception of a throwaway line about taxation, the motivations are ignored, and in their place is put a revenge tale. On the other hand, it does well what it does well, so I'll give it a solid B.
[Incidentally, might I suggest that this thread was passed over in the transfer to the new movies and music section?]
|
|
Saru
Scholar
[M:4]
Somewhere between there and here
Posts: 67
|
Post by Saru on May 4, 2005 14:24:32 GMT -5
Hehe, I remember in the cinema there was this one guy who got really into The Patriot. Some guy gets killed, who I can only assume was an antagonist (I forget what happens in it, I only seen it once), and this guy who was getting into the film stood up and shouted 'yeah, take that'. I was in creases.
I think I probably thought the film was crap too.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinadan on May 4, 2005 18:55:00 GMT -5
I'd like to weigh in on The Patriot just long enough to say that I refer to it most often as "Braveheart: American History Edition."
|
|
|
|
Post by Child of Immanuel on May 5, 2005 14:16:56 GMT -5
ROTFLOL!!!
|
|
(which I actually had none...all my friends are from elsewhere, not my school).
--was a theological--not socio-political--insistance on free will.) By the way, the film makers had absolutely no idea of the difference between free will and providence; they made one up, instead. And, as the arrow-in-the-tree-killing-the-traitor moment shows, even the director was willing to believe in some form of poetic justice, or providence. But it's all so muddled, at any rate, that one shouldn't bother about it.
.
