Yes! Ohmigod! Someone's blondie bear's a twenty-question genius!

Harmony ,'Help'


Buffista Movies 3: Panned and Scanned  

A place to talk about movies--Old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.


Consuela - Jul 10, 2004 8:24:09 pm PDT #103 of 10001
We are Buffistas. This isn't our first apocalypse. -- Pix

I saw Farenheit 9/11 tonight. I feel like I've been expertly manipulated.

And when Lila Lipscomb was breaking down in front of the White House? I wanted to slap the camera man. "Go HELP her, you asshole!"

I perhaps see these things on too personal a level.


§ ita § - Jul 10, 2004 8:27:01 pm PDT #104 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

Brian Singer is attached to it, I think, tommy. But it's not been cast yet.


tommyrot - Jul 10, 2004 8:29:28 pm PDT #105 of 10001
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.

Jenny Agutter and Michael York were both very attractive back in 1976. And the new Logan's Run shows on IMDB as coming out in 2005.


§ ita § - Jul 10, 2004 8:36:41 pm PDT #106 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

I love this language choice in an article about A Home At The End Of The World and its cut:

Farrell has apparently made some hard demands about the trimmed scenes being re-inserted back into the film.


tommyrot - Jul 10, 2004 8:44:47 pm PDT #107 of 10001
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.

The flimsy outfits and lack of bras in the future are distracting.


DavidS - Jul 10, 2004 9:06:11 pm PDT #108 of 10001
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."

In Spider-Man I didn't mind that there was an El in NYC. There used to be one in Brooklyn and it was featured prominently in King Kong (the original) and I'm pretty sure the Fleischer Superman cartoons. To me it was callback to that kind of mythical fantasy NYC. It's not a real life Manhattan.

I also loved that scene with the train because I thought it did something that's very hard to do in these movies and that's give some kind of scale to the hero's ability. I know some were thrown out of it because that seemed beyond Spidey power but to me it was pretty much the same as the falling skyway car in the first movie. He's sacrificing his body more than using his strength. The strength was coming from the webbing, and he endured it. It was similar to the Fleischer animated Superman cartoons because they made you feel that even though he had this strength, they really pressed that upper limit in a credible way that added drama. Too often those kind of powers just become a deus ex machina.

Also the fight scenes fucking rocked. Again, they were choreographed around the specific abilities of the two characters. Doc Ock's power was palpable, and little bits like Spidey using his webbing to pull Doc into his punch was sweeeeet. It just looked great. Infinitely better than the first one.

The movie had a lot of little shout outs: Spider-Man No More with the suit in the trashcan was a famous comic cover. I loved how they did a Haskell Wexler lens flare when they did the goofy "Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head Medley." Stuff like that.


§ ita § - Jul 10, 2004 9:08:51 pm PDT #109 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

The real reason noone can object to the elevated trains in NY is that there are elevated trains in NY. Just not there.


Scrappy - Jul 10, 2004 9:23:49 pm PDT #110 of 10001
Life moves pretty fast. You don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.

Count me in on the teary-eyed Spidey 2 love. JZ is me, and how proud am I about that?

Saw "Badass" tonight. It's Mario van Peeble's film abut the making of his Father's seminal film in the 70s. Fascinating--Mario is a tremendously charismatic actor and the film is pretty unblinking portrait of his father as well as a terrific evocation of the controlled chaos of a low-budget film. It's kind of an odd thing watching the movie--Dude, you're playing your own Dad. And you're talking to the actor playing you as a 13-year-old.


§ ita § - Jul 10, 2004 9:28:02 pm PDT #111 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

Mario's good in it, really? I've never liked him in anything, although he's very good looking. How does Melvin come off? I've had the book burned into my brain, and he's pretty unflinching about himself there and IRL too -- you make it sound like Mario's true to that.


Scrappy - Jul 10, 2004 9:37:11 pm PDT #112 of 10001
Life moves pretty fast. You don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.

He WAS good., And a beautiful man--he's 46 and he looks gor-juss. And, yeah, it does a good job of showing us Melvin's many strengths and weaknesses and how they both contribute to and hurt his work. And the fascinating and thing is that sometimes his weaknesses help his work and vice versa.