(shrug) I'm neutral on that trailer. It looks pretty cool in lots of ways (I did like the cartoon, complete lack of understanding aside), but I see your point, ita, about her physicality.
I guess i'll decide come December.
Saffron: I'll die. Mal: Well, as a courtesy, you might start getting busy on that, 'cause all this chatter ain't doin' me any kindness.
'Trash'
Buffista Movies 4: Straight to Video
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.
Gris - Aug 18, 2005 11:12:21 am PDT #6567 of 10002
Hey. New board.
Glamcookie - Aug 18, 2005 11:16:21 am PDT #6568 of 10002
I know my own heart and understand my fellow man. But I am made unlike anyone I have ever met. I dare to say I am like no one in the whole world. - Anne Lister
Loved the cartoon. Am "eh" on the live action.
Strega - Aug 18, 2005 11:18:57 am PDT #6569 of 10002
That doesn't look nearly funny enough. Not that I really expected them to do a 90-minute shaggy dog story, but... they should have. Just for me.
Kalshane - Aug 18, 2005 11:21:15 am PDT #6570 of 10002
GS: If you had to choose between kicking evil in the head or the behind, which would you choose, and why?
Minsc: I'm not sure I understand the question. I have two feet, do I not? You do not take a small plate when the feast of evil welcomes seconds.
Yeah, the FX are too much. There's stretching believability and there's shattering it into little tiny pieces. When something is live-action, I need some kind of acceptable premis to explain people doing super-human things or it else it just takes me right out of it. I'm much forgiving with animation, though I'm not sure why beyond the fact that it's "less real."
§ ita § - Aug 18, 2005 11:23:09 am PDT #6571 of 10002
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I need some kind of acceptable premis to explain people doing super-human things or it else it just takes me right out of it
Me too. Although "Hong Kong" is acceptable to me.
Maybe that's the last city! Hong K...nah, doesn't fix things.
beekaytee - Aug 18, 2005 11:54:01 am PDT #6572 of 10002
Compassionately intolerant
The first scene's fx screamed X-Men on the Statue of Liberty to me.
§ ita § - Aug 18, 2005 11:58:50 am PDT #6573 of 10002
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
It was Underworld to me.
Polter-Cow - Aug 18, 2005 12:12:11 pm PDT #6574 of 10002
What else besides ramen can you scoop? YOU CAN SCOOP THIS WORLD FROM DARKNESS!
It was Underworld to me.
That's what it was!
It looks cool enough, but I'm easily pleased when things are blowing up.
Matt the Bruins fan - Aug 18, 2005 1:05:09 pm PDT #6575 of 10002
"I remember when they eventually introduced that drug kingpin who murdered people and smuggled drugs inside snakes and I was like 'Finally. A normal person.'” —RahvinDragand
At least most of Underworld made a sort of sense once you accepted vampires and werewolves with superhuman powers. (Though I still wonder what kind of magic allows you to support multiple 500 lb.-plus monsters from ceiling plaster in rat-trap tenements...)
Maysa - Aug 18, 2005 1:08:31 pm PDT #6576 of 10002
I saw 2046 last weekend and was disappointed. I loved In the Mood for Love but this movie was just... wacky. Most of it was a retread of ITMFL, which while pretty, is still a retread.
I didn't like 2046 that much when I was watching it (besides being glad because of the prettiness), but as I thought about it later, I liked it more. It was interesting to see how Chow is so caught up in his past that all his stories, and all the people he meets in the present, echo his relationship with Su Li Zhen. I loved how all the women had some aspect of her. But it wasn't near as good as ItMFL.
Apropos of almost nothing, I just read a really stupid review of 2046 in the New Yorker. Anthony Lane's reviews are so petty. He dislikes almost everything but never offers any insight or interesting commentary.