I saw Pirates of the Carribean 3 the other night. I was depressed til I read somewhere that

I just watched "Dreamer" (Kurt Russel, Dakota Fanning) again! that movie is awesome!

has anyone ever seen Journey To The Center Of The Earth (Brendan Fraser, Josh Hutcherson) in 3D? it's really awesome in 3D!

I've been out of this conversation for so long that I don't think I'll even try to comment on things. Although I will say that I thought Star Wars: Episode II was much, much worse than I.

Some of my recent viewings:

- Julie and Julia - one of the funniest movies I've seen in a long time, although it did tend to drag a little near the end and the "Julie" sections were much less interesting than the "Julia" sections. Definitely a fine movie, though, with a brilliant performance by Meryl Streep.

- Becoming Jane - I was required to watch this for school a few weeks back ... and didn't particularly like it. It is beautifully shot, has a very nice soundtrack, and quite a fine cast (James Cromwell and Maggie Smith are magnificent as always, and I was surprisingly unbothered by Anne Hathaway's accent). But I was generally unimpressed by both the screenplay and the direction. This is a dreamy, wandering sort of movie that's not at all faithful to the tone of Austen's style, which they seem to be trying to mimic, making sure the characters parallel those from Pride and Prejudice. It was hard to keep track of everyone, and the failed elopement was the height of ridiculousness. That simply would never have happened in those days; it was quite improper. And it really didn't add anything to the storyline either. Overall, entertaining, but pure Hollywood cheese nonetheless.

- Miss Austen Regrets - A much more successful Austen biopic. This is set in Austen's later life and gives us a very different look at not only the way she lived, but also the way she wrote: instead of claiming, as BJ did, that she love and lost and this inspired her to write, MAR instead claims that she never found what her characters did and that it all came out of her imagination; nevertheless she led a happy life, and in the end regrets marriage only as a means of supporting her family. I like this interpretation, and I very much like the way it's presented in the film. The music and cinematography may not be as "polished" as in the Hollywood film, but they're much more than passable, and the acting is simply fantastic: when you have Phyllida Law as Mrs. Austen, Greta Scaachi as Cassandra, and Olivia Williams as Jane herself, you know you have a winner. The last twenty minutes of the film gave me goosebumps, and I was near crying several times. Down to earth, harrowing, and intensely moving, I recommend this to all JA fans.

- The Emperor's New Groove - Believe it or not, this is only the second time I've watched this film since it came out all those years ago. I remember seeing it on home video not long after its release, and thinking it rather stupid. Putting aside the fact that at that age I thought all attempts at humor immature, I think the very randomness of the comedy would have been too much for me to process then. Now, though I do not love it as others do, I find I enjoy it very much. It has a wonderful voice cast, including such "names" as John Goodman, Eartha Kitt, and Patrick Warburton. Yzma and Kronk were my favorites.

[plotting ways to kill Kuzco]
Yzma: Ah, how shall I do it? Oh, I know. I'll turn him into a flea, a harmless, little flea, and then I'll put that flea in a box, and then I'll put that box inside of another box, and then I'll mail that box to myself, and when it arrives...
[laughs]
Yzma: ...I'll smash it with a hammer! It's brilliant, brilliant, brilliant, I tell you! Genius, I say!
[knocks over bottle of poison on flower, which shrivels up and dies]
Yzma: Or, to save on postage, I'll just poison him with this.

The Emperor's New Groove is enjoyable for me to watch as well. I used to think it was idiotic, but after I actually sat down and watched it several years after it came out, I was pleasantly surprised.

@ Lysander: I love that/those quote(s)! My favorite bit is, "Or, to save on postage..."

I'd have to say one of my favorite quotes from Emperor's New Groove is Yzma and Kronk going to the secret lab.
"Kronk, pull the lever....WRONG LEVER!!!!....Why do we even have that lever?"

I spent this last week watching Lord of the Rings Extended Edition (not in one run). I still consider LOTR to be the standard for fantasy films. This was the movie that sparked the genre and Return of the King is the 3rd highest grossing film of all time (only behind Cameron's Titanic and Avatar). The one thing that makes Lord of the Rings stand out from all other trilogies is that it was designed to be one long movie. So there never was the temptation to do the typical failure attempt: "Same thing only bigger and better" I had big concerns about Two Towers due to the bad sequel curse on many movies, but when I saw it, I was in total awe. If only other movie makers could understand this format.

But Christopher Nolan and the Batman Begins/Dark Knight writers apparently did. Apparently, it was designed to be a triology with an underlying villian hidden throughout all three films. I'm really hoping they go through and finish what they planned on doing with the third Batman idea, but with Heath Ledger passing away, I don't know if they can do that.

Well, the fact that the LOTR books are one long story (not a trilogy ) had something to do with that, Fencer. The books were already set up as one big story so the movies mirrored that because they had to. They didn't decide "Oh! we should make a sequel to Fellowship of the Ring!" No, they had to make another movie because it's the next stage of the story. Leaving it at the Fellowship wouldn't have completed the story.

So I think saying

If only other movie makers could understand this format

is a little unfair. The Two Towers isn't technically a "sequel". It's the next segment of an already pre-designed storyline.

Still, you make a good point. The "bigger and better" goal for sequels in general often times lands flat on its face. But in my experience, "sequels" are stories that have a beginning, middle, and end, and come after the first story that had it's own (completely separate in a way) beginning, middle, and end. Pirates of the Caribbean is a good example of this. They could have stopped with the first one, and the story would have felt complete. LOTR could not do this.

And Emperor's New Groove is a favorite of mine. We're always quoting it in my house.

P.S."Brooklyn!"

I'm well aware of that, Rising_Star. I was simply stating my point of view going into Two Towers. I knew LOTR was originally written to be a single story that was later split into three for publishing sake. My comment about directors and writers is that a number of movies these days are intentionally being made into trilogies. Spider-man and X-men included. The real problem with sequels is that they are simply trying to re-make what made the original successful. Having cookies that refer to the first is one thing. Attempting to duplicate it is something else. Sequels should still be able to follow the same characters, but they need to be made deeper and show the improvement from the first. Prince Caspian pretty well pulled it off in that all four kids had different issues for development, but weren't simply pulling off the same development from LWW. (Peter was still the weakest in this regard).

So I hope that clarifies my point. Some movies should simply be left alone after the first and other do warrant sequels. Spider-man has enough sources to warrant sequels, but Pirates of the Carribean simply didn't need it. It was a complete story and while there was interest in seeing what happens after that, to go there requires much better story writing than what was given.

On another note, the Matrix Trilogy is being played on AMC right now. I am simply watching it for background noise as I finish my homework. The Matrix was also a movie that should have been left alone after the first. This is something the Wakovia Brothers (the directors) realized quickly after the fact. The story never got much deeper and ended up just being more action.

Sorry, Fencer! I must have misunderstood you. That does clear things up immensely. Thanks.

P.S."Brooklyn!"

*quickly stops by to give his 2 cents worth on the latest movie discussions*

I remember watching Emperor's New Groove with my cousins and liking it, but not getting all the jokes. Then, a few years alter catching it on TV and really enjoying it (plus getting all the jokes ). It's by no means a "great" film, but for a modern animated Disney film, it's really good and just plan fun.

-------------------------------

On trilogies: The only film trilogies that really work in my book are LOTR, Star Wars (the original trilogy) and Indiana Jones. Granted, Indy 2 and 4 are just plain awful while 1 and 3 are great. Sooo, I guess never mind Indiana Jones.....

LOTR is of course suppose to be one long story, so it was already "pre-made" for a good trilogy of films. Star Wars did the best of making a sequel that topped the first and then making a final act that closed everything up nicely.

The Dark Knight is probably one of the greatest sequels ever, right up there with The Godfather II, Aliens and The Empire Strikes Back.

Films that did not need to be a trilogy/series: Jaws, Alien and Pirates of the Caribbean. Pirates was a great, stand alone movie that wrapped-up all the plots nicely at the end. The sequels could have been great if only Disney had given Gore Verbinsky (SP?) and his writers more time instead of saying "It's a hit! Now go make two more.... NOW!"

I agree that Indiana Jones was good enough to warrant all the others made. They were all really good, I thought. Don't know about Star Wars because I haven't been able to see them yet. I'm sure LotR is good but I haven't seen those yet either.

Another I think that had a good sequel is National Treasure. I loved Book of Secrets as much as I loved National Treasure. A lot of the time, sequels are flops but National Treasure wasn't.

I finally watched the third Matrix movie tonight and thoroughly hated it. How the same people responsible for the awesome first entry in the series could have churned out the epic stinker that is The Matrix Revolutions I do not know.

Spoiler

Sad thing is, the only scene that I really liked was the end in the park with the Oracle. Everything else was just bloated and uninteresting. Even the finale Smith/Neo fight was so over-the-top that I couldn't enjoy it. Trinity's death was pointless. I imagine it was intended to be some sort of motivation for Neo to go on, but they never convinced me that Trinity and Neo actually cared about each other, so I was unmoved. The battle for Zion was like the evil twin of Helm's Deep. Too long, too boring, and utterly unexciting. People shoot at millions of identical robots for about twenty minutes. Also, I kept expecting Link to run around screaming "WAAAAAAALLLLLLLLTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!"

Yeah, even the director's who did the first agree that Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions were bad. They wanted to re-do them pretty much as soon as they were released. I'm gussing it was the studios who forced them to rush things. There was one real redeeming value of the Revolutions: the music to the Smith/Neo fight. The fight itself definately could have been better, but they did have a good musical score for it. The story lines to Reloaded and Revolutions were simply horrific and it would have been difficult to land worse acting and script writing. So much potential, yet so poorly executed. Just like many of the sequels out there.

- Miss Austen Regrets - A much more successful Austen biopic. This is set in Austen's later life and gives us a very different look at not only the way she lived, but also the way she wrote: instead of claiming, as BJ did, that she love and lost and this inspired her to write, MAR instead claims that she never found what her characters did and that it all came out of her imagination; nevertheless she led a happy life, and in the end regrets marriage only as a means of supporting her family. I like this interpretation, and I very much like the way it's presented in the film. The music and cinematography may not be as "polished" as in the Hollywood film, but they're much more than passable, and the acting is simply fantastic: when you have Phyllida Law as Mrs. Austen, Greta Scaachi as Cassandra, and Olivia Williams as Jane herself, you know you have a winner. The last twenty minutes of the film gave me goosebumps, and I was near crying several times. Down to earth, harrowing, and intensely moving, I recommend this to all JA fans.

Oh I love this movie, I watched it sometime late last year. Ny sisters and I were all sobbing at the end. The actress that played Jane Austen looked very much like the actress that played Jane Fairfax in one the versions of Emma I saw....

That's because it's the same actress.

Oh dear, another anti-Matrix sequels discussion? We just continue to bait poor Gandalfs Beard, I tell you. I hope he has his argument saved somewhere, so he doesn't have to type it all over again.

Oh really! I thought so...how did they make her look so much older?