Okay, Citizen Kane bored me.

CK is very much an "if you get into the story" movie.

Welles's follow-up, The Magnificent Ambersons, is pretty similar. Technically brilliant, but not a story for everyone. Well, plus the last half hour really should be about 20 minutes longer (but that leads into the whole "the studio cut about 45 minutes out of Welles's cut, and then the film was destroyed" matter).

I haven't seen Forrest Gump. I've yet to hear a reason why that should change.

I haven't seen Touch of Evil or Triplets of Bellville. That probably will change, sooner or later.

And back to the hot fellas discussion:

Clive Owen: Meh.

Tobey Maguire: I like watching him act and can easily see myself doing his Peter Parker or that jockey fella. But I have to avoid watching him in the DVD extras. Re: Peter Parker and MJ, he said something along the lines of, "She has to get past her need to be with the popular guys." Uh, no. She has to get past her need to be with guys who actually, you know, show up occasionally. Bring your personal issues to the set if they help your performance, but leave 'em off the commentaries, sweetie.

Jake Gyllenhall: Creepy pretty.

Matt Damon: I like him more with every performance. Still not at the stage where I need to lick him, but that's not out of the question some day.

James Franco: Hot like a hot thing full of chili powder. Mmmmm.

Colin Firth: Meh.

Guy Pearce: Way too bland.

Orlando Bloom: Mmmmmmmm. Yes, please.

Johnny Depp: Also, mmmmmmmmm.

Jack Davenport: Mmmmm, with a side of yummers.

Hugh Jackman: I've been of "I see why ya'll like him" opinion for ages. Liked his work, didn't feel the lust. Then I rewatched X-Men the other day and something clicked. Now I need to lick him as he reads Stoppard monologues to me.

Citizen Kane

I liked the structure of it, I think; finding out the man's life via his interactions with all these other people.

That's exactly why I love it....

I think Forrest Gump was the movie where Gary Sinise first revealed that, although he is not bald, practically every wig put on him during the course of a movie makes him look like he is.

As for Touch of Evil, I think that it's a movie easier to love if you read Cahiers du Cinema than if you don't. It is often hard to love a movie if its appeal lies only in form and revolutionariness.

I don't understand people who liked Cube. It seemed to me like a pretty typical gory horror movie. Also, don't watch the second one.

I thought it was a neat little examination of existentialism, in the trappings of a gory horror movie. I also appreciated the inventiveness of using the same set over and over again, without it becoming boring. (I wonder how the actors felt about it, though). I think I tracked the movie down because Nicole de Boer starred in it, and she was/had just joined the Star Trek: Deep Space 9 cast and I wanted to see an example of her work.

I loved Touch of Evil (although Charlton Heston as a Mexican stretched my suspension of disbelief). I especially appreciate the irony that as corrup as Orson Welle's character was, he was correct about the murder.

As for Touch of Evil, I think that it's a movie easier to love if you read Cahiers du Cinema than if you don't. It is often hard to love a movie if its appeal lies only in form and revolutionariness.

Well...I was a film major, so using myself as an example doesn't really disprove this, except that I love Touch of Evil on a totally gut level. I'd probably love it on an analytical level too, if I ever bothered to try, but my reactions to it were entirely of the "Hot damn, this is good" variety.

I think Forrest Gump was the movie where Gary Sinise first revealed that, although he is not bald, practically every wig put on him during the course of a movie makes him look like he is.

Ok. That made me laugh out loud and startle my office mates. See, I have a Gary Sinise thing and I thought he was hot even with the bad Lt. Dan wig.

Well...I was a film major, so using myself as an example doesn't really disprove this, except that I love Touch of Evil on a totally gut level. I'd probably love it on an analytical level too, if I ever bothered to try, but my reactions to it were entirely of the "Hot damn, this is good" variety.

Not in the least a film major, and this was exactly my reaction. A big visceral filmgasm, the movie-viewing equivalent of Deb's reaction to Joyce's Ulysses. I love that it actually stands up to thoughtful analysis, that it's full of meat and guts and spicy brains, but all of that is secondary to the filmgasm it gives me.

Also, Orson purposefully set that shot up for a day when the studio sent somebody down to check up on him. They were suitably impressed that he knew what he was doing.

Actually, that was a later scene, also a long, single take, set in the suspect's apartment. It's known as the "shoebox" scene, and covers something like 5-10 pages of script. After they wrapped a good take, Welles turned to the suits and said "We're now 3 days ahead of schedule" which got them to leave him alone (until the editing - like Blade Runner, there may not BE a definitive version of the movie).

I love Touch of Evil on a totally gut level. I'd probably love it on an analytical level too, if I ever bothered to try, but my reactions to it were entirely of the "Hot damn, this is good" variety.

Jess is me on this movie. Always in my top 5, and, despite having read many reviews and analyses of the film, I still couldn't tell you why except "coooool!"

A friend of mine saw the full version of Sky Captain and World of Tomorrow at SDCC, and basically just said wow, plain wow.

Plus the clips they had were very nice...