Slashdot Mirror
Holiday Movie Thread
"Ripley" could have been a few minutes shorter, but about the only negative thing to say about it is that you might get depressed that you don't live in Italy.
Any Given Sunday "Any Given Sunday" is Oliver Stone's take on the NFL as well as on media and culture (his twin obsessions). Through his eyes and perspective, this is much more than a sports movie, but a blunt look at race, celebrity, money and the high-cost gladiator mentality present in athletes, (and many Slashdot posters).Stone is watching too much MTV. Too many ominous clouds are moving, and it sometimes seems as if even drunken fans are having sepia-toned flashbacks. Robbie Robertson's soundtrack is outstanding, but mournful Native-American chanting doesn't always mesh with pro football.
Still, this film strikes home on several levels. It presents a blunt look at how race permeates football, and how an increasingly corporatized sports culture has overpowered ethics, sanity and tradition, putting almost unbelievable pressure on the participants - owners, coaches and players alike.
There are few heroes or villains here, something of a step forward for Stone, who is definitely your most-issues-are-black-and-white kind of director.
Al Pacino plays an aging coach whose young new owner - played by Cameron Diaz - doubts his will to win. He can't communicate with his star quarterback, who is black. Obnoxious, blow-hard ESPN-inspired reporters drive him nuts.
By Oliver Stone standards, this is an almost gentle movie about money and sacrifice. Some of the camera work is amazing, and "Any Given Sunday" is cinematically dazzling at conveying the banging and crunching of pro football, something that doesn't come through nearly as well on TV.
Those are my opinions. Jump on in.
(Holiday Movies, Round Two: Magnolias, Man On The Moon, Cradle Will Rock - coming soon.)
I'm not much of a critiquer, but I really enjoyed Any Given Sunday. I thought it offered a glimpse into the NFL that we all pretty much knew was there, and then added some insight as well. I like watching football, but I've never played it. AGS showed some of the good and bad in the sport (depending on your perspective). If you are a football fan, go see it. If not, stay home.
NPR offered another take on Any Given Sunday. Consider it a commentary on the movie business. Stone, like the coach, is an old-timer trying to do the right thing -- make a good movie (or build a winning team). But he is caught between the producers (owners) and the actors (players). I won't say more since I haven't seen the movie yet, but the analogy is enough to make me want to see it.
Code is garbage in garbage out.
Languge is garbage in, non-sequitor out.
I'm sort of puzzled at "Open Source" things, like "Open Source Movie Reviewing"... so, can we have "open source sex" next? *g*
But, I have to be concerned with Jon Katz's writing. Surely as a writer, he would have started out doing review writing (I took that as an undergrad writing course), but it looks like that he quickly blurted something out because he hasn't posted anything in a few days. What's up with that?
Or is Katz just getting lazy? I'm not ususally one to poo-poo (what am I, twelve?) but it seems that he just threw this up there without any rhyme or reason. Open source reviewing? I believe that is called a "discussion" Mr. Katz. Perhaps you've heard of it.
/.)
(I'm not even going to mention that these movies have little, if anything to do with
Pete
The sole purpose of the Internet is to get porn and bomb making plans into the hands of children.
I was glad to see a positive review of "The Talented Mr. Ripley." I have been a huge fan of Patricia Highsmith for years and nearly gagged when I first saw the ad for the movie. I had zero faith that hollywood would stay faithful to the rather disturbing themes and plot found in the novel.
By the way, if haven't read the novel, get a copy, it's a great book.
While I know that "Man on the Moon" will be reviewed in your next batch, I did, however, wish to share my opinion on it. The movie was excellent and Jim Carrey's portrayal of Andy Kaufman was brilliant. There were times that it seemed as if you were watch Andy himself all over again. The film kept you in your seat, making you wonder what antic he was going to pull off next and the ending, while sad, was uplifting and positive overall.
I suggest that anyone who wishes to see a movie that is funny yet undeniably human go see it and see it soon.
-- Shadowcat
kageneko@kageneko.net
"I can roleplay. I can frag. I can PK while you lag."
Actually, Jon, I have some other complaints about the TMR than the fact that I don't live in Italy. (Though that would be nice. Sigh.)
First - the movie was great. Inspired direction, gruesome violence, heart-breaking dialogue - a lot of things ot like all wrapped up in a beautiful package. A looooooong movie, but worth the investment of time.
But the movie leaves you hanging. I want to keep this spoiler-free, but I'd be remiss if I didn't say that the ending stunk. Everyone I went with just sat there at the end saying, "No, you idiot, that's the wrong person!"
More importantly, the movie, even at three hours, needs a few more scenes. Early in the film, Damon's Mr. Ripley states that he has three talents: lying, impersonating anyone, and forgery. But where did he learn such things? Lying is something we all pick up to a certain extent, impersonating people might be something you do as a parlor trick, but forgery is not something you learn in school any more than money-laundering is part of the accounting course structure in an MBA program.
So how did he get this way? Why is someone so obviously talented and sweet so obsessed with getting himsself on the road to criminality? We know that Mr. Ripley was poor, but being poor doesn't make you a forger.
In any case, I'd give the movie two thumbs up, 4.5 stars, and a nomination for best movie - if I didn't feel that something was missing.
Jemal
ok, call me a lamer if you want to, but i was hardly entertained by 'the talented mr. ripley'. an hour into the movie, i stared at my watch wondering how much longer i had to endure it. the entire storyline moved along way too slowly. the only positive part of the movie was actually seeing matt damon play a bad guy. i did suceed in hating mr. ripley by the end of the movie, but more or less for matt damon's poor portrayal of the confused mr. ripley and for paltrow not taking her clothes off.
Hmmm...this is a good opportunity to bring up something that's been nagging me for a few months now. Jon Katz tries really hard to be subversive and underground and never misses an opportunity to demonstrate how some subculture will triumph over the corporate masses. He rah-rahs Linux, never misses a swipe as Microsoft, immortalizes lifeless geeks and DVD crackers...well, you get the idea.
What's odd in that light, though, is that he repeatedly talks about mass market, mass culture films as if they're some sort of inside secret that he's privy too. He tried to pin down The Matrix as some sort of little known art film that only hardcore geeks would seek out, for example. And while I enjoy film criticism, it doesn't work when coming from Mr. Katz. It's like listening to a zen buddhist go on about the joys of Wal-Mart.
hmmmm..I just can't decide which movie to watch...Any Given Sunday, Rudy, Air Bud: Golden Reciever or Blue Chips
No..hold on..here's a brick wall I can pound my head against instead.
However, that aside- congratulations on the new 'hr' tags! Maybe I'm weird but to me, seeing you pick up new bits of tech and knowledge (rather than ossify and rot in a rut) is more exciting than any of the movies you're talking about.
Any chance of a 'Slashdot HTML for Beginners' article by you? I'm sure there are some slashdotters who don't know what a horizontal rule tag is, and now you do (dear god, let him not be doing these things in word). If you posted such an article, it would immediately be pounced upon by legions of clued slashdotters- who would probably end up providing huge amounts of education for all. Care to give it a try?
Is this a flame? Does this make you a bastard?
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
Let's hope we don't have any football-loving moderators... :P
--
-
-
-
-
-
You will never get those two hours and fifteen minutes of you life back
Don't make the same mistake I did, I beg you
For a longer review try this one
After reading Jon Katz's review of The Talented Mr. Ripley I could not help but laugh. Maybe it was because the way the article was introduced was a complete joke, (As made clear in earlier comments) or maybe is was because I had already read a review of the film which said quite the opposite, at least concerning the accuracy of the film adaptation and the need to keep the plot secret. (Come on, the preview makes most of it pretty clear) For those who want a good review of the film, read Charles Taylor's review at Salon.
--
Gregory J. Barlow
fight bloat. use blackbox.
Gregory J. Barlow
fight bloat. use blackbox.
Galaxy Quest.
If you are looking for a decently made film that pokes fun at the Trekkie/Sci-Fi crowd, you need look no further. Lots of good gags and pokes at the world of people who take TV just a LEETLE too seriously.
There is much pleasure to be gained in useless knowledge.
By that reasoning, playing your piano is nothing more than poking a bunch of keys, and giving a speech is nothing more than stringing together a bunch of syllables. The reductionist fallacy is alive and well on Slashdot.
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
A. Mr Showbiz Liked Mr Ripley. means I will avoid it like AIDS.
B. Any Given Sunday was ignored/shunned/blacklisted by the NFL. Says it all right there. Besides, its an Oliver "I know what REALLY happened" Stone.
I'll go see Toy Story 2 instead.
From the trailers I've seen for Any Given Sunday, the film looks like it's an unlicensed look at the evolution of the Dallas Cowboys.
From what I can tell, Pacino is playing Tom Landry, the aging quarterback actor is Roger Staubach, Cameron Diaz is Jerry Jones, and LL Cool J and that guy from Living Color are something like Michael Irving and Deion Sanders. Of course the timeline of these people being involved with the Cowboys is wrong for this to be a literal interpretation, but the movie looks like a cool adaptation of this theme. Escpecially since the trailer contains at least one shot in Texas Stadium. After the disappointing North Dallas Forty, I am really looking forward to a good 'Dallas Cowboys' movie.
Since we're doing these reviews 'open source' I'll assume some other reviewer will come along and fill in the actor's names I've omitted.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
I dont hate everything by Katz just because it is by Katz, but I hate that everything by Katz is a "Feature".
FWIW.
Ever say "No thanks, I have enough RAM"?
Ok, I know I'll probably get flamed for not seeing the "art" of the film, or picking up the nuances of its in depth look at being an "outsider"... But dear god. You will NEVER get that 2 and a half hours of your life back, no matter how badly you'll want to. And trust me, you will want to. From it's mind bogglingly slow pace to it's unlikely coincidences and then on to its not so subtle homosexual undertones... egads. It was fraught with improbabilities, bad accents and aside from Matt Damon going from mild mannered piano tuner to heartless killer, absolutely ZERO character development. Though, I actually did find 1 things entertaining: Kate Blanchett. For no other reason than she played (is?) a good airhead :) The two young ladies I was with, who seemed to be totally infatuated with the 2 lead actors, could not believe how just absolutely boring the movie was. Now I realize I'm not picking up on the "art" of the movie... But honestly, if I want art, I'll go visit a museum. For god's sake, if I'm going to spend $6.75 (or however overpriced the ticket was) to be entertained, please, entertain me. Don't make me sit there and wish I was somewhere else. Peeling potatoes. Or reading more Katz :)
Like him or not, you have to give him credit. He has posted some of the most interesting and "post-ridden" stories that Slashdot has presented. As another poster put it, he likes to "stir it up" which is a good thing. Isn't that what Slashdot is based on? The sparking of discussion? I, for one, like to hear the opinions of others whether I agree with them or not. Maybe I'm one of the few, but I like his stuff.
By the way, I'm currently reading his new book, "Geeks" and I like it quite well.
Keep up the good work Jon.
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
This was a horrible 3 hour music video with little clarity about anything. Lack of any NFL licensing made the cheesiness worse, too. Two thumbs way down...
Have a Happy.
There are a number of interesting points that no-one has mentioned. First, the music in this film was very interesting -- both the classical stuff and the jazz. The song that plays with the opening credits is called "Lullaby for Cain", and of course the suggestion that Ripley is Cain is not accidental. Remember that Cain was angry at his brother because his brother's gift (blood sacrifice) was acceptable to God, but Cain's gift (vegetables, I think) was not. Rejection, rage, regret: these make up the inner life of the sociopath. The movie was full of -- I don't want to say literary references, because there weren't really references, just themes familiar from literature -- echos, let's say, from James (rich Americans in Europe), Cather (Ripley's happy solitary Christmas totally reminded me of "Paul's Case"), Conrad (The Secret Sharer) . . . The first "incident" (I'm trying to avoid spoilers) is shown in laborious detail, the second quickly, the third not at all: each time is easier and the first is the only really difficult one. The point is shown, not explained -- "Ripley" never uses narrative voiceover for unecessary exposition, which was the flaw that crippled "Rounders". Finally, the acting was very good. It's too bad that Phillip Seymour Hoffman's role was too small for a supporting actor Oscar. Has he ever been that good before? Didn't you hate Freddy the moment he drove that annoying little car onto the plaza? These last two or three years have been very good years for films. American History X, Thin Red Line, EWS, and this fall's American Beauty, Bringing Out the Dead, and Ripley. These films will age well. Soren Renner [ posting anonymously because registration didn't work] srennospamner@lycosnospammail.com
Big difference - assuming the piano playing was decent, you have created a beautiful piece of artwork.
Assuming the football playing was good, the other guys are in pain and you've suckered a bunch of fat, testosterone-laden slobs sitting in the bleachers out of a whole ton of money. If you're lucky, you won't fall apart before you hit 35.
Of course, this is all just my own opinion. It needn't apply to everyone, I suppose...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
And this same "Ripley" novel was made into a film once before -- in 1960, it was released as "Purple Noon," a French-Italian thriller starring Alain Delon and directed by Rene Clement.
Hope this helps.
I always look forward to Jon Katz's "Articles"... the comments they elicit are absolutely hilarious! While most writers and enthusiasts encourage civilized discussion by posting only when there is something substantial to post, Jon Katz posts seem to be a signal for all the kooks, comedians, and critics to crawl out of the woodwork and start blathering. (Just like I am right now.) They seem to work on the same level as Slashdot surveys.
The heck with the movies... I'm waiting for the next Jon Katz article to come rolling in.
LouZiffer
LouZiffer
Metamucil can fix that...
The word you're looking for, btw, is "pooh-pooh".
-A.P. (Yes, I know this is off-topic, but I'm hoping the moderators have a bit of a sense of humor...)
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Football, just one more reason to be thankful we won the war. Or we'd be drinking tea and watching cricket!
OliverWillis.Com
An Operative with an Agenda
How about this:
Skip these two papfests and check out Almodovar's latest, if it's playing in your town. (It's been out here in NYC for several weeks, so some prints likely have filtered out to the rest of the States. In Europe, it may or may not be easier to find.) Now THAT's a movie.
Don't want to spoil it with a lengthy review; I find I enjoy movies better when I don't know too much about them first. Suffice it to say, that the title (which might imply some sort of Woody Allen nebbish) is a bit misleading. No Oedipus complex here.
Oliver Stone gets a big miss from me on this latest effort.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
I rest my case.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
No, you'd be drinking lager and watching, er, football...
Pope
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
As for football, I know it's just a sport, but it's incredibly sophisticated. It can take a QB a year just to get familiar with the plays his offense runs and the kinds of defenses he might see. For example, look at the way Peyton Manning (a very intelligent fellow) played with the Colts last year, his rookie season, compared to this year.
Personally, I prefer a simpler game - soccer - but you must appreciate the complexity of football.
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
Mr. Katz has one advantage over all those other writers: he has the power to publish immediately. Apparently there is no editorial review, or if there is, it's amateur.
I'm not a Katz basher; I've enjoyed almost all his previous columns. It bothers me that I have to become a Katz nay-sayer. But I have to say it; after this second batch of reviews, and pending the third batch, these review columns are inappropriate and unnecessary.
They detract from Slashdot's strengths, fail to give any insight, and draw large amounts of flamage. I would probably even excuse it all if they served to build community, but they do not.
At the very least, create another topic for these sorts of things so that advanced users can skip them. I do want to read about things like Toy Story and digital projection systems, so I don't want to skip the "movies" category. Maybe there should be a topic called "off-topic" or perhaps "diversions", specifically not relating to News for Nerds?
He could be a smart guy, I don't know if he is or isn't -- Mr. Katz just strikes me as intellectually lazy. The most clear evidence for me is the way his articles tend to ramble on and on and on. It's as if there was no thought of how to make the writing more concise, which would help illustrate his point to the reader much more effectively. Instead, the approach just seems to be a combination of, "Let me throw everything out that I can think of, so that I'll have a better chance of having something stick," and "Everything I've just written is crucial, I can't think of anything to cut out."
The second example for me would be the way he decries the way the media stereotypes people, and then he goes and does the exact same thing. Instead of cutting through the chaff, he just turns the story around 180 degrees and stereotypes the players from his perspective. I doubt he's dumb, so he's got to realize that he's doing this, and I attribute his failure to do anything about it to laziness. In a similar vein, there's his seeming need to tell us how everybody throughout history that he admires was really a geek in disguise. Ugh.
Lastly, I can't hold anyone in high intellectual esteem when they do as much pandering to the crowd as Mr. Katz does. The thing is, he presents himself as some non-conformist iconoclast, but his choice of outlets is nothing but preaching to the choir. Wired? Slashdot? I'm curious whether he could ever muster a criticism of the audiences for which he writes. The whole faux-populism, "Down with The Man!" bullshit. The entire "I'm a Mac user, but ya know, I think the geek lifestyle is so cool, that goshdarnit I'm gonna start using Linux, then tell you about my experience while I sugarcoat 90% of the problems that I had with it" claptrap. Now if he were a truly critical writer, his followup to that series would be a thorough explanation of why, despite the wonders of Linux, he ended up going back to his Mac. Of course, that would require telling Slashdot readers things that they don't want to hear, so don't look for that article any time soon, kids.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
P.S. If Mr. Katz hasn't actually gone back to his Macs, then I withdraw that particular conjecture, but stand behind my point. I just mentioned that as something I can easily picture Mr. Katz doing, but not something of which I have first-hand knowledge.
Their are three errors in this sentence. heehee... sorry, I'm veeeeeeery bored.
Jesus is coming! Everyone look busy!
Being a football fan, Any Given Sunday was on my list and I managed to see it opening night. Certain things really impressed me such as the cinematography on the football field as well as the choreography. The movie seemed to have a good balance between actual football being played and the politics behind it. I can't comment on whether or not it's accurate because I don't know. However, it is a movie, entertainment, some you see for enjoyment. I enjoyed the movie, enough said.
Purple Noon is a very cool flick. It was re-released to the art-cinema circuit a few years ago, and we had the pleasure of seeing it. The only drawback I can think of was that all these French-speaking people had last names like Ripley and Greenleaf. =-)
And William Burroughs makes an uncredited cameo appearance in it as a wealthy boat buyer..
-----
".sig,
crap crap crap crap... show me a good movie like Casablanca, or the Maltese Falcon... now those are friggin movies. eh..
HEY KATZ, you big blowhard... how about reviewing some real movies next time
A genius writes code an idiot can understand, while an idiot writes code the compiler can't understand.
This isn't 'open source' reviewing, this is group reviewing. Let's not confuse the two concepts.
I think that in any assessment of this movie, some important caveats must be taken into consideration.
First and most important, it is a long film. It is paced like a British or earlier American film. It was so refreshing to go to see a movie what wasn't in a rush to start blowing things up. The problem is that most Americans have an attention span of about 2 minutes and can't tolerate any movie that, well, doesn't start blowing up things in the first 2 minutes.
The second thing that must be noted is that Damon's character is gay. Not as in "has some homosexual undertones" or Mr. Katz completely off base "outsider" (I think he is still trying to drag us along the High School disaster road he can't seem to get his mind off) but rather he is gay and in love with Law's character. It provides the motive for what happens later. We are led to believe that the motivation is greed from the adverts, but it is actually love.
The point is, if you are a raging homophobe, like some of the other commenters earlier, and are going to squirm in your seat at every inference of Damon's character's homosexuality, stay home.
The third point that I think is important to make is that this "mystery" isn't one in the sense of "who did it" or "will they catch him" as much as it is a portrayal of how a good person can be transformed into a murderer. I don't think we have seen a movie do this quite this well since Mr. Hitchcock's time. (The movie reminded me so much of a Hitchcock film.)
And finally, I do agree that the ending, well, it was just so wrong. I think that was the point. "Oh no, you aren't getting a happy ending." They could have let him sail off into the sunset with new boyfriend... The ending was chosen to be the most disturbing, but could have been so much constructed- so many other scenerios come to mind that make so much more sense (such as Mr. Ripley's suggestion that they stay in the cabin screwing the whole trip).
But in the end, this is really pointless because the REAL reason to see this movie at all is simply that my god, Matt Damon and Jude Law looked good.
There used to be a signs above piano players that said, "Don't Shoot the Piano Player."
I've always wanted to make a movie with that as a title. Maybe drop the "Don't" part.
Wait a minute. Hmmmm.
Okay, nevermind.
was funnier than hell!!!!!
I did think that Carrey did a masterful job of portraying Kaufman, but the lack of a story is what made this movie a dud for me. I wanted to see more insight into what made Kaufman the person he was.
Basically, the movie just redid a lot of Kaufman's comedy bits, except with Carrey in his place. The thing is, almost all of these are available on TV/video, so you would think that the movie would go deeper than that. Well, they didn't.
I did laugh a lot during the movie, but the word-for-word imitations just aren't nearly as funny as Kaufman doing them. It's not that I wouldn't recommend not seeing this flick, I just was disappointed. If you're undecided, you might want to wait until it's on video or cable. Seeing Kaufman's old tapes are better than seeing this flick.
On a humorous note, did anyone notice how, even though everyone else was wearing their hair and their clothes as if they were in the particular time period of the movie, David Letterman looked exactly like he just walked off the set yesterday? I guess he wasn't exactly thrilled with the project, because the word is that he told them that he'd only give them 90 minutes to shoot the scene, and he refused to do his hair/makeup/clothes/glasses like the early '80s Dave.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
This post contains spoilers. Please don't read it if you haven't seen the movie and plan to and care about suspense.
I enjoyed Any Given Sunday. What I thought was cool about the movie was that the characters were not pure good or pure bad. Coach D'Amato is generally sympathetic, but it is clear that he is living in the past much of the time, and making the team suffer for it. Willie Beamen is a great character because you really want him to succeed (just because he's generally a cool guy and the 3rd string off-the-bench phenomenon) but he gets so incredibly cocky that you just know he's going to pay for it. LL Cool J's character Julian gets less exploration in the movie, but he has two sides as well--on the one hand, he is just looking for money and endorsements and resents Beamen getting all the attention. On the other hand, at times he has more team spirit than Beamen, and also in that play that loses the first game (Willie's first game) he is accused of wanting to get his yardage bonus, but really it is Coach D'Amato's fault for calling the play. Another interesting character is that of Dr. Harvey (James Woods). He is generally a prick, but he has a point in his last speech: yes it is unethical not to tell Shark the truth about his injuries, but he is right in saying that Shark would want to play anyway, and this way he preserves Shark's confidence, which is essential to his playing. If Shark knows that he could die if he gets hit the wrong way, he may hesitate at the key instant. Along this line, one thing that annoyed me was that Shark then doesn't end up having any ill-effects from this. He just gets lucky. Cameron Diaz's character was also two sided. She is basically just a ruthless money-hungry manipulator, but she has a point in most of her arguments with D'Amato. He is living in the past, etc.
After all these cool characters, the lame thing in the movie is that they all just suddenly realize that they've been jerks. Like Beamen is in the huddle and he says "Oh yeah, forget about all that stuff I said. Wasn't me." OK, problem solved! Or when Diaz's character apologizes to her mom. Problem solved! Or when Julian jumps out of bounds instead of going for the touchdown. Oh, now he's seen the light and is a team player. The movie sets up these cool conflicts in the characters, and then they all get resolved just like that at the end.
Overall, I thought the cinematography was excellent, and I liked the integration of the soundtrack in the movie. Things like the part where Beamen is talking to the sportswriter interspersed with other scenes were just great. And in spite of the fact that it was basically like every other sports movie in that they have the Big Suspenseful Game at the end (gee, will they win it?), it actually is exciting and fun to watch.
Clark
--
Finding a job shouldn't be work.
Structured data. Structured searching. The Enzyme Project
Generally, if "they" (being the critics) give a movie a great review, the best tip is to RUN. FAST. Stay as far away as possible from whatever movie it is. After all, they loved "Elizabeth" and while Cate Blanchett did a heck of a job acting it's one of those movies you watch and then wonder "What the heck did I just watch?!" In defense of /., I can say that /. has been usually right on target with their reviews, especially when you include all the comments that are sure to follow.
/. in that geeks do have a life and like to go catch a movie occasionally. Life isn't completely made up of the net, as much as we try to make it that way. /. is just providing a little nudge to those of us who live at our computers to get out and live sometimes!
One other thought - movie reviews are very relevant to
Besides, movie reviews allow us to spend our free time more efficently by helping us thin out the "Critic's Choice" movies and spend our time on the good ones!
"Say no more..." - Monty Python
Great movie. Just great. I saw it in a shiny new upscale downtown mass market "feely"-cinema complete with video-walls in a preview sponsored by a major radio station. I drank Coke(tm) and afterwards visited Chapters(tm) while drinking Starbucks(tm) coffee.
I would love to hear what an American history buff would have to say about it, but knowing absolutely nothing about the subject matter, I adored the movie.
On a totally unrelated note, for somebody who was bashing Katz for citing the Matrix as though it were underground theatre, anybody seen PI? Certainly not underground theatre, but as close as I get these days. GREAT movie for people who bash away too hard at any sort of algorithm.
Al Pacino - Jerry Jones
LL Cool J - Michael Irving
Cameron Diaz - A plain old bitch
Shark - Lawrence Taylor
Jamie Foxx - Ray Lucas
Al Pacino - Jerry Jones
LL Cool J - Randy Moss
Cameron Diaz - A Bitch
Shark - Lawrence Taylor
Jamie Foxx - Ray Lucas
> OK if football is so stupid and you're so smart
> pick next weeks winners and post them here!
I don't think its that simple. I don't know about
some people but, I just can't stand sitting around
watching someone else play a game.
I like to be doing something, participating. Games
that _I_ also enjoy playing I can stand watching
but...only for a very short time.
As I never played football, I have no love for the
game. I have no desire to watch it. It is very
boreing to me. All I see is a bunch of sweatty
men running after a ball.
Of course...to each their own. Most people aren't
in to writting perl code or listening to indian
classical music, or admiring statues of Shiva or
taking quantities of mind altering substances and
sitting admireing plants.
I think football is pretty stupid. You probably
think at least one, if not more, of my ways of
spending my time is stupid. such is life.
I just wish you sports watching people would stop
refering to your teams as "We". When I was on the
wrestling team in High school, I said "We Won"
or "We Lost". When I was not on the team...I never
said it. Why? Cuz "We" was not part of the team.
"We" sat around and watched THEM win.
Thats really my main peve with sports. That and
well... I hate it when they put on some game and
cancel the TV show I WANT TO WATCH (I only watch
a very fw hours of TV a week...so the shows I do
watch are ones I truely enjoy) because some game
went into overtime and they just HAVE to show the
whole thing, or due to some other thing the game
goes 30 mins over time.
That truely pisses me off. When TV shows are too
long to fit in their time slot...they get "To be
continued..." when sports go over time...showes
get canceld or bumped to inconvinent times
(or worst..."already in progress").
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
You're right-on about the movie being an allegory of sorts for Mister Stone's experiences in tinsel-ville. Very enjoyable on many levels; great filming and editing, great sound and great acting. It's not the Be All or End All of anything, but as a Really Good Movie(TM), it Kicks Ass. See it on the biggest screen possible.
**>>BELCH
Open Source Reviewing....
Hmm. even for jon Katz this is a tad too much of the hypemaster at work. Maybe Jon wrote this article for another less savy place and forgot to slip that part out, maybe he still thinks he is inventing the Net as he goes along.
Maybe I get a little ticked off when Media Scum like Jon Katz deem themselves the Voice of A Generation. Jon, do you realize taht folks could "JUMP ON IN WITH REVIEWS" way back in the BBS days of the 80's? Where you still a Media Wonk back then enough so that you missed out on the tech? Did you think that now was the only time that is?
Please, Jon, before you tell us more of your Open Source Invention, go back and study OUR history, you might be surprised that there is a rich tapestry of inovation there already.
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
First, it helps to understand the attraction of the book and its sequels. Tom Ripley is a charming, lovable sociopath without a moral bone in his body. Incredibly clever and amazingly gutsy, he takes chances you wouldn't believe and usually gets away with them. Even when he gets caught, his smooth tongue and implausible but unprovable lies get him out of many jams. The amazing thing about his character in the books is that you can't help but feel sympathy for this person with his complete lack of morals.
"Purple Noon" ("Pleine Soleil") captures that amorality very well. As you follow the convoluted plots that Ripley lays out, you have to admire his audacity. It is a great movie, and the only trouble with it is that it doesn't leave you feeling all that sympathetic for the character, the way the books do. You admire the skill with which he escapes detection of his crimes, but that doesn't make you actually like the guy.
That brings us to the new movie directed by Anthony Minghella ("The English Patient") and starring Matt Damon, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Cate Blanshett.
As anyone who saw "The English Patient" knows, Anthony Minghella has a love for showing scenery. Where "The English Patient" had the vastness of the desert, "The Talented Mr. Ripley" has the picturesque villages of Italy, and Minghella makes them one of the stars of the movie. That can be a good thing if you are a fan of travelogue, but is rather distracting from the subject matter being shown, I think to the movie's detriment.
Minghella apparently was aware of the problem I mentioned with "Purple Noon", because he goes to great lengths to make the audience sympathetic to the character. This Tom Ripley feels great guilt about his crimes. It is only circumstances that cause him to commit them in the first place, rather than a cold calculation as displayed in "Purple Noon".
Furthermore, in this movie Tom Ripley displays a lot more passion. Whereas in the books he was somewhat androgynous and adapted his sexuality to suit his environment, in "The Talented Mr. Ripley" there can be no doubt as to his true feelings.
By going for the sympathy vote, a believe that a vital part of the Ripley character has been torn away. If you haven't seen the previous film or read the books, you probably wouldn't even be aware that it was gone. But for those of us aware of it, the loss was a bitter disappointment. The loss also causes some odd moments in the script that are only really explained by knowing about the character from other sources.
Then there is the acting. Matt Damon just didn't have what it takes to get across the complexity of the character. Sure, the script had toned the complexity down a lot but he could have replaced some of it with some subtle acting. He doesn't. His Tom Ripley is a creature that is totally reactive rather than proactive, and lacking the sociopathic nature that is key to the character.
The rest of the cast varies from good to very good. Jude Law is outstanding as Dickie Greenleaf, conveying exactly the right combination of sincerity and decadence. Cate Blanshett does a very good job, and Gwyneth Paltrow is quite good for the first half, though in the latter half of the movie her acting is fairly simplistic. Philip Seymour Hoffman is also excellent as usual.
Overall, I walked out of the theatre having enjoyed it but disappointed about what could have been. I give the film 3 stars out of 5, where I gave Purple Noon 4 stars.
Yes, I happen to have watched the movie recently on video, and was not sure what was going on until - well, the middle anyways. It's interesting because it is one of Martin Scorcese's first movies, I think. The production values are cheap compared with today's movies, and the colours are somehow washed out, but it has the real feeling of coastal Italy. Go figure, it was filmed there. I am in no rush to see the new release since it looks like another pathetic Hollywood ripoff of an interesting idea which was well-done in the 60's and has the addition of pretty faces and gore for the 90's Cheers
I don't get it.... I only see 2 errors.
(btw, "there" is correct, unlike the guy who thought it should be "their." "Their" is possessive.)
I found that Any Given Sunday, which sucked IMO, can be put into the following formula:
Sometimes intense, usually incoherent football scene + Al Pacino shouting at various people for about 10 minutes
Multiply this by about 8, and you've got Any Given Sunday.
--
These aren't the droids you're looking for.
Unimaginative plot? The hell?! It's very rare that we're presented with a film as complex and layered as The Talented Mr. Ripley. The audience is truly perplexed (and often frustrated) by the main character's actions, something I haven't experienced since seeing The Last Time I Committed Suicide . No, it's not a happy film, but the movements of the plot are pleasantly baffling. Ripley made me want to read the rest of the books in the series.
something of cineast here... why doesn't anyone even mention "purple moon"? how does this film remain so forgotten after its recent re-release (about two years ago)?
maybe someone around here knows why some reviewers refer to "strangers on a train" with regard to purple moon, yet neglect "the talented mr. ripley"? kuma
umm.... he must really be a good actor then. This certainly is going out of his RL status...
Matt Damon, an...an... outsider?
I'm sure he faces a lot of rejection in life. I mean, no girls or anything. Poor guy. *end sarcasm*
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
oh, no-no-no, purple moon was *not* a scorsese film, he was responsible for the re-release.
from what i have read, the new work is quite different from purple moon, which may have had interesting sexual politics *off* the screen... really, the new film provides (according to what i have read) a powerful performance by damon as thwarted in homo-erotic love. no actual homosexual contact occurs in the film, but if you are homophobic (or otherwise mentally-ill), beware this complex story. kuma
I thought that the movie was slow, and overall non entertaining. I enjoy movies, but I did not enjoy this one. The plot is good. The acting is ok. The book is more suspencefull. Overall I thought that the movie stunk. on the other hand, Being John Malkovic (a kindof new movie by spike jonze) was kinda cool!
I need to do my laundry
Please send $3 to:
Jon Allen
p.o. box 308142
Oliver Stone's portrayal of the NFL thru the eyes of an MTV crowd was wildly unsuccessful. His subplots flashed around chaotically making the interest in the film hard to come by. For instance, Cameron Diaz's character went from insatiably money hungry to a women reconciling with her past. The problem was that it wasn't believable, it happened at the end of the movie, and it seemed chameleon-like. Every subplot seems to coincide with the end of the movie like a well orchestrated football play but life isn't that smooth. Life has twists and turns and sometimes you lose the fourth down. Damon Wayans character was well acted but gives the tired arguement of putting down the black man. How many times have we heard this! Does the american youth need originality or overused, unoriginal, boring propaganda. Oliver Stone seems to want to include every aspect of the 90's into three hours and still keep the plot smooth and fluid. Take a hint, football ideology doesn't encompass the MTV generation's view of real life. If you want to make a movie about football go to "Varsity Blues".
Trust me, I saw the movie, Katz saying it is good IS definitely a troll! The last movie I saw this bad to get a good review was "The Apostle" with Robert Duvall. Save your money and go rent Fight Club, or Pi.
I watched Any Given Sunday, on Fri eve. And frankly, it had almost all the elements to be a great movie, in my opinion. The only thing that was lacking, was that it was an Oliver Stone movie. I think that this movie could have been absolutely awesome, if someone other than Stone had directed. My gf is a football fan, and the "Natural Born Killers" filming of the football scenes, gave her a massive headache.
I thought the story, and the casting was awesome. But the cinematography was atrocious.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke