So I went and saw Cat People at a nearby arthouse theater. Yahoo Movies said it was the 1982 remake with Nastassia Kinski. They lied. It was the 1942 original. Which I had never seen, and was good. All psychological and stuff. But unlike the remake, less nekkid.
Willow ,'Conversations with Dead People'
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.
They lied. It was the 1942 original. Which I had never seen, and was good. All psychological and stuff.
OH YEAH! Val Lewton, man. Incredible filmmaker. If you liked his Cat People, tommyrot, I highly recommend his Bedlam, starring Bela Lugosi. Good shit.
Wow, that's like paying for hamburger steak and being given filet mignon prepared by a master chef instead.
Yeah, pretty much.
Although I still want the hamburger - maybe on DVD.
Although I still want the hamburger
By which you mean porn.
I saw Green Street Hooligans today, which would have been much better without the random-ass voiceover. It was still pretty good. The ending is a little weird -- the "lesson" Elijah Wood learns doesn't make a whole lot of sense -- but it's an enjoyable two hours. (Especially if you like that whole gritty handheld London style of filmmaking, which I do.)
This may shock people, but I saw both Police Academy and Mystery Men for the first time yesterday. My reactions to both were similar -- interesting concepts, should have done more with them. (Though in fairness to MM, it was on basic cable, and no doubt quite a bit was cut out.)
(ETA, a couple hours later): Just looked up MM on IMDb. Yes, a lot was cut out. As in, a 2-hour movie was cut to fit a 2-hour commercial-filled timeslot.
NYT article: Apparently some conservatives have embraced March of the Penguins as a film espousing their values about monogamy and intelligent design (WTF?) [link]
Oddly, the Washington Post just ran a piece by George Will using March of the Penguins to attack Intelligent Design as being an obviously stupid idea.
Penguins - all things to all people.
The penguin is a blank canvas on which we write our world views.
OK, in all seriousness, don't conservatives know about the gay penguins?