No other band in rock history that hates each other so much manages to release so much product, except maybe Yes.

Oh, man, if Yes put out a DVD as comprehensive and wildly entertaining as Beyond The Beginning, I would totally buy it.

How was the Corman film? It has quite a reputation as one of the progenitors of the 60s counterculture films.

Does the "director's cut" deliver anything significantly different or better?

Elemeno = OTM.

OP is also a chance to see Northbrook Court circa 1979.

Not too sure about all that, but it's definitely different. If you like the original Little Shop Of Horrors then you'll like Bucket of Blood. It's very predictable by today's standards, but there's definitely some interesting ideas kicked around the background, and it was also Corman's first attempt at infusing humor with the horror genre - which (coupled with a bet that he couldn't do a movie in 2 days) led to the creation of LSOH. Personally, I was perfectly entertained for the 65 minutes this movie runs, altho I admit I'm mildly feverish and not looking for any deep thoughts.


Honestly, I only saw this film once, years ago, in the theatres. And it is a very flawed machine - all the supporting cast outshine the leads in every scene - even silly ol' Bronson Pichnot makes Slater look like a doof, but that's mostly because Slater's character is completely offline, coupled with Slater mawking his way thru every frame. Plus the incidental music by Zimmer totally ruins the rock-and-roll mood of the story.

So I couldn't tell you what the differences are between the director's cut and the original, but I actually think I enjoyed True Romance better this time around. Is this a great film? No. But there are some really stunning moments throughout - the least of which is Chris Walken vs. Dennis Hopper. Oh man.....

You mean the way Zimmer quotes Carl Orff's Musica Poetica? That's a direct reference to the same music being used in Badlands which TR was clearly modeled on. It fits the mood perfectly.

Moving to top of Q.


Both are great films...the real travesty of Scorcese's career was Dances With Wolves beating Good Fellas.

Quiz Show was not great. I was bored and disappointed. I remember the movie being hailed as "America losing its innocence", that was just wrong (America never was innocent). The performances weren't great, either; Turturro was wayy too over the top, and Finnes was what he always is-- a stiff.

Hey, I don't care what the artist was intending - the result is what counts. And I stand by my earlier statement: the Zimmer music doesn't work here. It's far too new-age for the mood. Visually, things get all violent, with great characters... then some cheesy WNUA-esque psuedo-african electronic marimbas + drums appear that just turn the whole scene into a friggin' afternoon soap opera.

And I like Zimmer's stuff. He's just off-base here. But then again, this is a Tony Scott film...

Kungfu Hustle

Very funny kungfu movie. Axe Gang rules the Earth.

Yeah, the "innocence" line could be construed that way...I think they were referring more to the image of America as embodied in television. Hell- do we really believe that Dick Van Dyke and Mary Tyler Moore or Ozzie and Harriet never had sex just because they slept in seperate beds?
As for the acting in QS, Turturro was maybe a bit too much of a loon, but Fiennes subtle performance, unravelling the layers of security without losing our compassion- comapare this with his role in Schindlers List and it's hard not to see his talent. Paul Scofield, as his father, stole the movie in each of his few scenes....and the film did win The New York Film Critics Best Picture, for what it's worth.

New agey? It's German music from the 1930s!

Not the way ol' Hans records music. It is new age, and very out of place in a rock and roll movie featuring the ghost of Elvis.

I've possibly never felt more uncomfortable watching a scene in a movie than this.

I've possibly never been more shocked by the violence of a scene than the one with Patricia Arquette and that other guy. Anyone who'se seen it knows what I'm talking about.

I really don't know if I'll ever see it again, though.

Watch Badlands. It sounds the same.

hadn't seen this one in over a decade. damn fine movie, one of the best of the 90's.
bless you tim robbins (and you get to sleep with susan sarandon!? you may be the second coming).

Last Days
This may be the greatest movie of all time. I'll never know because I couldn't get past the 15 minute mark.
Dreadful.

Could have been a bit more dynamic but still not bad.

Has anyone seen World Trade Center?

yes
http://www.soundopinions.com/forum/index.p...=5142&hl=center

I watched this the other night and really enjoyed it. Amy Adams' performance was spot on and the whole rural small town feeling was spot on to everything I've ever experienced.

I have 'junebug' saved the digital thingy at home. Hopefully I'll actually watch it this weekend.

hip hip

NEWS FLASH!

Field Of Dreams: still the greatest movie ever made.

Over to you, Tony.

I just made it through this, and guess what?
He eats Coco Krispies and, surprise, commits suicide because he's miserable.

Van Sant does some "experimental" aka "pretentious" time shifting shit, and there's a butt-numbing shot that goes on forever of "kurt" just tooling around with drums and stuff. Witness star Lucas Haas also listens to Venus in Furs twice. Watching someone listen to music = Weak Sauce.

Can't believe it's been 17 years since Drugstore Cowboy.

p.s.
Michael Pitt is shit. I wish I could edit his face out of my dvd of Hedwig.

Spectacular. Loved it, loved the style and attitude. Definitely will add it to the collection.

Russian Ark (2002)

This imdb reviewer puts it best:
An unnamed and unseen filmmaker finds himself in the Hermitage museum in St Petersburg in what appears to be the 18th Century. No one seems to be able to see him except his travelling companion, Frenchman Marquis de Custine, who he talks to. Together the two of them go around the museum, flitting between time as they go, gradually covered 300 years of Russian history..... I was interested in it not for my love of Russian history but for the fact that it was done in one take and, for that reason, I quite enjoyed it.

As far as plot goes, I really think you need to have an existing knowledge of Russian history as this film will not help you understand anything about it other than a passing impression. This was the case for me as I know next to nothing of the history, but I was still able to gleam some things about the political relationships between Russia and Europe as well as some of the main players. However it never got to the point where I was taken or engaged by the material; interested is perhaps a more fitting word to use - and that's still a good thing.

Technically the film is gripping and very impressive. Much was made of Snake Eye's 20 minute one-take opening (even thought it was actually 3 takes) or Goodfella's seamless move from street to table, but this film blows them away. I cannot even imagine the sheer logistics involved in creating such an effect. It would be impressive if the film was all shot in one room with a few cast members, but this film moves around the museum with a cast of thousands and set pieces that vary from two people looking at paintings to a massive ballroom scene. I was held totally impressed by the whole film as the entire one take was delivered seamlessly, without flaw. For this reason the acting is impressive whether it is Dontsov's acerbic Frenchman or just some extra's - everyone had to get it right bang on time and they did.

Overall this film will be a masterpiece if you have a good working knowledge and understanding of Russian history. However even if you don't know that much (like me), the technical aspect of this film will impress you no end even if the material is best seen as `interesting' at best.





A saddeningly anemic remake of the classic '30s movie, despite Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau, Susan Sarandon and the direction of Billy Wilder. A shrill performance from Carol Burnett as Mollie Malone and a terrible slapstick car chase makes one cry for an emergency infusion of His Girl Friday, STAT.

Never seen it. Am I missing anything?

This really is phenomenally enjoyable, provided you have a thing for noir dialogue. Except for maybe one casting mistake (the key femme fatale is Sean-Young-in-Blade-Runner vacuous), it's an exuberant little ride of a movie. Early contender (I hate the backloaded calendar that makes me say "early contender" in August) for top 10 of '06.

Not quite 06 though....



Release dates for
Brick (2005)
Country Date
USA January 2005 (Sundance Film Festival)
France 6 September 2005 (Deauville Film Festival)
USA 14 October 2005 (Chicago International Film Festival)
USA 20 October 2005 (Austin Film Festival)
USA 18 November 2005 (St. Louis International Film Festival)

Yo, anal-retentive, non-voting douche bag:

at least for voting in these parts, we tend to go with the USA wide release--the closest this got was an art house run in April, which you surely saw when you pulled the dates above from the same page on imdb that these came from:

USA 31 March 2006 (New York City, New York)
USA 31 March 2006 (Los Angeles, California)

USA 7 April 2006 (limited)

It's a bit schlocky, but it's a fun movie (the book is better-- Shoeless Joe by W.P. Kinsella). Buddy of mine was working in Japan when this movie came out. He bunked off work one afternoon to go see the film. Said he sat in a crowded theatre full of Japanese businessmen. By the end of the film, every one was crying.

I hope this helps.

Pretty decent film that follows British code-breakers during WWII.

It's like the schlockiest schlock in the history of schlock.

Winning points:
-guy finds what's missing from his life through the ghosts of old baseball players, which is awesome.
-James Earl Jones' incredible monologue about baseball
-Anything about Shoeless Joe Jackson makes me emotional.
-Anything about the White Sox make me emotional.
-The shot at the end with the aerial view of the cars driving through Iowa is kind of amazing.

Good to hear about Brick...will watch this weekend, while Tony scours the internet to find some tiny island in South America that released "Manderlay" in 2005, thus making it inelligible.

For the win. Thanks.

How about Cannes in 2005?

I've been taking vicodin for two days and I still think you're high

[quote name='NumberTenOx' date='Aug 25 2006, 10:18 AM' post='176601']
[/quote]
It's a bit schlocky, but it's a fun movie (the book is better-- Shoeless Joe by W.P. Kinsella). [/quote]

Yeah, I read the book, too. Lots of items in the book--such as J.D. Salinger serving as a major character--naturally couldn't be done on film. Betcha lots of sons (and daughters) called their Daddies on the phone, long distance, for the first time in a long time, after this one first came out.

Well-intentioned and enjoyable? Yes. This is the kind of movie M. Night Shlamalama should be doing.

"Greatest film"? Nah. Let's say "One of the better Kevin Costner movies."

Obviously we know that Jon Bon Jovi really won WWII.

recently bought from disc replay:


and some other crap for $6. they threw in commando for free too.

Commando...what a phenomenal fucking movie that is.

Not a bad movie at all. A little confusing in the middle, but really solid work all around.