Post a response to this discussion thread
ABM will most likely kick something off my August list. The deceit that occurs halfway through the movie is up there with the endings of "Sixth Sense" and "Fight Club" and "Usual Suspects" -- SO LONG AS YOU KNOW AS LITTLE ABOUT THE REAL LIFE EVENTS AND PLOT AS POSSIBLE. Therefore I will say almost nothing about even the first half of the movie because it will lead you to guess what might happen in the second half of the movie -- and at some point you will probably guess right. But you shouldn't be guessing to begin with. That twist caught me so off guard I almost fell out of my seat. HOWEVER, it's also the movie's Achilles heel, because despite the fact that putting such a twist in the middle is highly original, it also hurts the second half a lot. In fact, I spent much of the second half expecting yet another twist of the same nature -- far too distracting, and eventually this Ron Howard film gets bogged down in too much sentimentality. Nevertheless, I think it's pretty damn good and you should all go see it. Crowe deserves an Oscar nomination to go along with his Golden Globe (though not a win in either case), and I hope Jennifer Connelly has finally paid enough dues for an Oscar nomination as well. Ed Harris and Paul Bettany are also outstanding, and Christopher Plummer is "keeping it real." Heh-heh. 8.5/10
Beer: I'm only going to be in LA for three days. Otherwise I might drive not only to San Francisco but also to Mexico and Vegas and a couple other places I've never been to. But unfortunately with 6 or 7 movies on my list and 3 days to deal with them, I might not even get a chance to hang out with any stars!
Throwing Muses: I'll see if I can add "Lantana" to the list -- thanks for the recommendation! And I'm not back. You won't see me again after tonight/today until January -- if I do the CMA (and I ain't talkin' Garth Brooks there).
Drew: Thorton was excellent, and there were a few good laughs but overall this movie disappointed me more than any other movie this year, and that's because I always assume the worst of every movie anyway -- but in this case, riding on the heels of "O Brother," I didn't think the Coen brothers could possibly let me down -- and I was wrong. It just didn't do anything much for me. Sorry.
Slater: In my bizarre defense, my ratings do not necessarily automatically mean "8 is always better than 7." Rather, they mean "8 in this genre is always better than 7." Because also in no universe is "Jimmy Neutron" equivalent to "LOTR." But it's better than "Cats & Dogs" as far as kids' movies go. Also in my defense, I have since seen pieces of "Harry Potter" enough times that I really don't like it as much as an 8 anymore. But I can't really change my ratings. What's done is done. But in my year-end rankings, it's highly likely "LOTR" will be above "Harry Potter," if that's all you're worried about.
BUT "LOTR" got a 7 because it's a pretty darn faulty fantasy-epic -- it's a 7 compared to "Star Wars Episode 4" (a 10). I certainly don't think it was one of the best pictures of the year, though it might turn out to be the best fantasy epic of the year (it's got almost no contenders for that title).
And might I ask do you even believe "LOTR" deserves to be the #1 movie of all time on the IMDB? At this rate, it will be and it will be by a million miles -- I've never seen any rating above 9.1 before among movies with 1000 or more votes. 9.7????
Parca: It's like we're now in an alternate universe -- we have almost no major disagreements. Honestly, I don't see a lot of difference between "Ocean's 11" and "Heist" as far as quality and entertainment are concerned, but both are vastly inferior to "Sexy Beast" (which I'm not sure you've seen). I do like that awesome "Bill & Ted syndrome" concept -- mind if I still that for a review later down the road?
The One sucks. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it - - why can't you come to terms with reality, man?
Mulholland Drive: Yeah, I know what I said. But the interesting thing here is that your review contains most of my criticism, yet you give it a MUCH too high 8 rating for that sort of critique. Frankly, the only way I found it "entertaining" was in that traditional train wreck sense -- and even that got old two hours into the film, especially after you figure out what he's sort of up to. So why does this film win a million critic assocation awards and the far superior (and much more complete) "Natural Born Killers" gets tossed into the "divisive" bin? Sometimes my so-called colleagues make no sense...
Post a response to this discussion thread