For awhile I felt like the most wrong casting ever was Keanu Reaves as Chevalier Danceny, but I recently rewatched and with my new appreciation of a) body language and b) slash, I have to reconsider...

But before re-watch, you seriously thought it was worse than him as a) Jonathan Harker (who could have been played by Johnny Depp except for studio interference, goddamit!) or b) the role he played in Much Ado About Nothing (I think that's the name of it - the Branagh film with Denzeil and Emma Thompson and Michael Keaton, etc.)?

There's also Bertulucci's LITTLE BUDDHA to consider.

I was going to bring up Little Buddha. Actually, as long as Canoe kept his mouth SHUT he was excellent -- body language especially -- and if he spoke no more than three or so words consecutively, but the accent and diction was PAINFUL if he tried to do more.

Actually, as long as Canoe kept his mouth SHUT he was excellent -- body language especially -- and if he spoke no more than three or so words consecutively, but the accent and diction was PAINFUL if he tried to do more.

With some significant exceptions (I'm thinking things like River's Edge, Parenthood, Bill & Ted (obviously), even Speed) isn't that pretty much the definitive statement about Keanu's acting?

But before re-watch, you seriously thought it was worse than him as a) Jonathan Harker (who could have been played by Johnny Depp except for studio interference, goddamit!) or b) the role he played in Much Ado About Nothing (I think that's the name of it - the Branagh film with Denzeil and Emma Thompson and Michael Keaton, etc.)?

Dangerous Liaisons was/is one of my very favorite movies ever, so I may be blinded by just how much I felt he stood out.

Whee! I just realized I DO have a good option for a midnight show of Dark Knight and I have my ticket printed out!

My second viewing will most likely be IMAX (as I've promised to see it with a friend - I suspect this will not be any kind of burden).

I received the issue of Entertainment Weekly in the mail today and that cover photo isn't the half of it. You all must see the other photos in the mag related to the Twilight books and films.

What is the attraction? Can someone explain this to me. I'd never heard of them until the posts here and the EW article and I still don't understand why the books are compelling.

Hellboy II is one of those very rare exceptions to the rule -- the sequel is better than the original (which wasn't shabby). Great characters including memorable villains, great action, great costuming/ art direction/ SFX. I think I need to see it again to take it all in, because there's so damn much happening in the corners of shots, et cetera.

Also, great use of Barry Manilow.

I'd never heard of them until the posts here and the EW article

Oh good, I was feeling really out of it, especially when they were treating the author like the second coming of JK Rowling.

Also, great use of Barry Manilow.

"You're in love... have a beer."

I liked Hellboy II very much as well. Better than the original, and I like del Toro's ideas about fantasy and would like to subscribe to his newsletter.

Bogart and Davis are seriously (bitterly, wrongly, but very deeply) smoking together.

That they were. They made several movies together, didn't they? The Petrified Forest is the only other one with these two I watched. I wonder if they ever played straight-up romantic leads with each other?

the chinless doctor

Heee! Poor George Brent. His isn't the kind of appeal that lasts through the ages, I'm afraid. I guess his primary appeal back then was being in gentleman-ly and courtly and stuff, but I mostly find him either skeevishly paternal or oily now.

Question re. Hellboy II. I am neither familiar with the comic nor have seen the first movie. Would I get hopelessly lost if I went and saw Hellboy II?