Wanted: Movie Recommendations
I recently signed up for Blockbuster Online. I’m taking suggestions for movies I ought to watch.... or avoid at all costs. (Leave a comment to this message with yours).
I recently signed up for Blockbuster Online. I’m taking suggestions for movies I ought to watch.... or avoid at all costs. (Leave a comment to this message with yours).
TiVo recorded The Hand That Rocks the Cradle. I wasn’t sure why at first, I didn’t remember setting it to record. Turns out Julianne Moore has a supporting role in it, and as you know I’ve asked our loyal TiVo to record anything with her in it. (That could also explain why several Lifetime movies have shown up recently too.)
I can't remember how long ago it was, but I think it was probably almost 10 years ago, because I think we were living in Princeton at the time (1995-1998), and I think it was in our first apartment (1995-1997). We had company, I think our friend Shawn from Allegheny, staying with us for a few days, and we were trying to figure out what movie we should rent.
My suggestion: Krull. I remembered it being a Science Fiction classic, a battle between good and evil, a scary monster, a very cool weapon (see picture). It was shaped something like a starfish with each left had a blade on it, and it would come back to him, boomerang-style (no explanation as to how he learned to catch it without losing fingers).
I remembered movie, I had spent hours of my youth playing the Krull video game for the Atari 2600, and I was excited to see it again. Neither Tracey nor Shawn had seen it, so I was going to get to share this really cool movie with them.
Except that it wasn't cool.
At all.
In fact, it was incredibly... what's the word?.... Oh yeah, "bad." It would be insufficient to say it was "campy," it was just bad... I distinctly remember looking at the box and seeing that it came out in 1983 and defending myself by saying "I was only 10 when this came out!!!"
The only good thing that came out of the experience was that we coined a new word:
It was interesting to see that others put Krull on their top-movie lists, such as the author of this review of Krull (weaintcool.com, where I borrowed the image above). Someone at IMDB called it “A guilty pleasure if ever there was one” to which I just have to say that I wish I could consider it a guilty pleasure. Instead it was an embarassing disappointment.
Oh well.
Anyone else have a similar "Gee, this seemed better the first time I saw it?" movie or other experience?
Laws of Attraction is a lousy movie.
But Julianne Moore is quite possibly the most beautiful actress I've seen, and quite talented too, which is a definite plus.
She's on the list, and I don't just mean the TiVo automatically-record-everything-she's-in wishlist, although she's on there too. I had one for Tracey for Sean Connery, but the man has been in a lot of really bad movies. So now we just record the James Bond ones.
It was also nice to see a movie where an actor and actress of similar age (16 May 1953 for him, 3 December 1960 for her, according to IMDB) were paired. Sure, she's still younger, but compared to many of his other co-stars, and the pairings of many other much-older-men with much-younger-women, it's a vast improvement.
Speaking of which, there appears to be a sequel to the Thomas Crowe Affair in the works. I couldn't find official word whether the lovely Ms. Russo (17 February 1954) will be joining him. I hope so.
Tonight was apparently some award show for movies that we mostly haven't seen (or, in the case of The Aviator, just wish we hadn't), the results of which no one will remember in a week. I thought it was an appropriate time to recognize the work of one of our generations great actors: John Cusack.
Terrible. Disappointing. Bad script, entirely predictable. Waste of Jennifer Garner.
Well that pretty much says it, with about 10 seconds left over.
Want more?
How bad was The Grudge?
Really bad. Awful. How awful?
I will probably think of more, but those are the ones that came to me immediately.
Went to see "Troy" over the weekend. It was very enjoyable. Sure there were some lousy lines, but overall I thought it was well worth seeing on the big screen.
(Thus ends the review. There is more if you'd like to read some of what happened while we were at the movie itself.)
Scale: 9/10
Should you see it? YES
How's the writing? GOOD
Any gaping holes in the plot? NO
What stands out? A sequel that is every bit as good as the original
See it in the theater or wait to rent? WORTH THE THEATER
Scale: 9/10
Should you see it? YES
How's the writing? GOOD
Any gaping holes in the plot? NO
What stands out? This movie shows you why ST: TNG was the best of the Star Trek shows
See it in the theater or wait to rent? DEFINITELY THEATER
Scale: 8/10
Should you see it? YES
How's the writing? GOOD
Any gaping holes in the plot? NO
What stands out? A sequel that is every bit as good as the original
See it in the theater or wait to rent? WORTH THE THEATER
(Wow, I haven't updated this for awhile)
Scale: 8/10
Should you see it? YES
How's the writing? GOOD
Any gaping holes in the plot? NO
What stands out? Great Bond flick
See it in the theater or wait to rent? WORTH THE THEATER
Scale: 7/10
Should you see it? YES, BUT IT'S QUIRKY, NOT YOUR AVERAGE ADAM SANDLER
How's the writing? GOOD
Any gaping holes in the plot? NO
What stands out? Adam Sandler with more depth than he's ever shown
See it in the theater or wait to rent? GOOD DATE MOVIE
That's your 20 seconds, but there's more
Scale: 8/10
Should you see it? YES
How's the writing? GOOD
Any gaping holes in the plot? NO, but all answers are not given at the end
What stands out? First movie in a long time to actually freak me out a little.
See it in the theater or wait to rent? WORTH THE THEATER
That's your 20 seconds, but there's more...
Scale: 7 out of a possible 11 (for you Spinal Tap fans)
Should you see it? YES
How's the writing? VERY GOOD
Any gaping holes in the plot? NO
What stands out? Tightly played screenplay, good development without being overly predictable, grabs you from the start
[ed - This review was written on 05/27/2002 after my wife and I had been waiting a week for her to go into labor "any minute now". She went into later early on the morning of 5/28/2002]
It's not about the Bike proclaims the title of Lance Armstrong's book, the sub-title "My Journey Back to Life" tells you what it is about :-)
The book is worth-reading. I didn't know anything about the man other than he had cancer and had won Tour de France twice. I didn't know much about Tour de France either.
Reading the story takes you alongside Lance's journey. Sally Jenkins (who probably did most of the real writing, converting coversations into chapters) draws you into each scene, from the mountains and the cheering crowds to the oncology unit.
By the end of the book, you understand what it truly means to win the Tour de France, even if you were (like me) completely ignorant of what it meant or required to do. Winning the Tour de France had less to do with winning bike race than it had to do with finding his way back to life. To win meant not that you had the best bike, but that you had "enough iron in my legs and lungs and brain and heart." It meant growing up, maturing.
Armstrong wrote that if he had to choose between overcoming cancer and winning the TDF, he'd choose cancer. I'd think that anyone who read the book would understand, but apparently not because the new chapter in the current version of the book includes this explanation:
What I mean is that I wouldn't have learned all I did if I hadn't had to contend with cancer. I couldn't have won even one Tour without my fight, because of what it taught me.
Armstrong is quite a character, his story is quite interesting and his character, like most, is much more complex than it would seem if you didn't know.
One quote that stuck with me, especially during this time of waiting, is this:
If there is a defining characteristic of a man as opposed to a boy, maybe it's patience.
I suppose that's been the lesson of the past week here too :-)