I have to agree with Shadowlander and the others that liked T3 . Yes, I was a bit disappointed that it was basically just another "chase" movie (I had been waiting for "future war" since T1). But it was still good on its own terms. And I loved Terminator: Salvation.

GB

I didn't have nearly the problem with Terminator: Salvation that most critics did. I actually thoroughly enjoyed the movie, even though it wasn't perfect, and saw it in theaters twice.

I also don't completely hate the 3rd film either, although it is my least favorite of the series. I think that if the first two films didn't exist to compare it to, it wouldn't have been criticized as much as it was.

The sfx are much improved from the first two films, which is to be expected, but to me it just didn't have the impact of James Cameron's films.

I thought Terminator: Salvation was all right, nothing special. I still say it takes a special kind of talent to get three actors like Christian Bale, Helena Bonham Carter, and Bryce Dallas Howard to turn out such bland, uninteresting performances. Like Equustel, I think watching TSCC and seeing a far more dynamic and interesting John Connor than Christian Bale's version makes the movie look even worse.

The Sarah Connor Chronicles--Bleeeh!

Besides being non-canonical vis a vis the films, I'm surprised it managed to make Summer Glau seem bland.

GB

Oh gosh, that movie drives me up the wall. It's totally inaccurate historically.

Spoiler

A woman would never never never run away with a man and then come back unmarried. She would have ended up a social pariah, like Maria Bertram in Mansfield Park.

Also, the idea that our heroine could not have "become" Jane Austen the author without the help of Tom is absolutely bogus.

The movie does have a few good points (the score is one of them, and there are also some interesting points made about gender roles) but be aware that it is pure Hollywood, and has very little to do with Austen or her time.

*sigh*. But I really enjoyed it even if it was disappointing. James was cute there though, I liked their chemistry. :">.

I recently rewatched an old favorite film of mine this week.

The Warriors (1979) is a very interesting film and one I very much enjoy. The premise is that all the gangs of New York City are called to a meeting (9 unarmed representatives of the top 100 gangs in the city) in the Bronx by the leader of the biggest gang in NYC, the Gramercy Riffs. The head of the Riffs, Cyrus, tells them that with a truce in place that all the gangs, working together, could overwhelm the police in the city as they outman them 4 to 1. Unexpectedly Cyrus gets shot and killed by the psychopathic leader of the Rogues (another gang) and the murder gets wrongfully pinned on the Warriors, a gang from Coney Island. When the Warriors' leader, Cleon, is killed by the Riffs, the rest of the group tries to make it back to Coney Island and safety, and this makes up the rest of the film.

The Warriors is filled with gangs of every description and some of the outfits are rather garish; the Baseball Furies dress up in baseball uniforms and wear some scary facepaint and tote around baseball bats, while the Turnbull AC's shave their heads and carry around chains and clubs. The movie is loosely based upon an ancient Greek story called Anabasis by soldier/writer Xenophon, which chronicles the adventures of a small Greek army attempting to retreat from Persia after their leaders are assassinated at a truce meeting with the Persian king Artaxerxes II. The soldiers must make it past the King's troops as well as miscellaneous hostile indigenous peoples in an attempt to make it the several hundred miles back to Greece, all on foot. The movie successfully takes elements from the ancient Greek story and works its own parallels beautifully. The acting can be hammy at times but it's still a really fun film to watch. 4 stars out of 5.

And the trailer, which is pretty good.

"Caaaaaaan yoooooou diiiig iiiiiiit!"

I just watched Amazing Grace for the first time. In almost every respect it's a very good movie but I felt it needed a little more oomph, more drama if you will. Also, the slave perspective wasn't sanitised so much as not given much screen-time (I guess you can only do so much with a PG rating.) Still, it was a good movie with a well-written script, great acting, costume and set design, music etc. Michael Apted is clearly capable of directing a great movie but it's a team effort for all involved. Let's see what happens with VDT.

Last night I watched The Lady Eve, a 1941 screwball comedy (yes, I'm on a screwball binge these days ) directed by Preston Sturges and starring Barbara Stanwyck and Henry Fonda. Thanks to The Black Glove for mentioning this in a conversation regarding screwballs a couple years back ... it's stayed in my mind, but now I've watched it I really wish I would have followed his recommendation earlier. It easily places among my top 5 favorite screwballs ever, though I do think the first half of the film is significantly better than the second. It almost seems a shame to even classify it as a screwball, although it shares many of the elements, because Sturges' brand of comedy is unique. The dialog is wonderfully literate, sharp, and witty (and there were definitely some bits that I can't believe he was able to sneak past the censors ) and although there's nothing showy about his direction, it's solid throughout. He's certainly a master of pacing. The acting is the icing on the cake. Very few actors could pull off the "bookish heartthrob" act as well as Fonda, but still, it's Stanwyck who really steals the show. I'd seen her in a couple movies before, and enjoyed her in them, but I was in no way prepared for the brilliance of her Jean Harrington/Lady Eve Sidwich. She effortlessly switches from comedy to drama in a minute, and somehow makes her character both manipulative and lovable at once. I'll definitely be checking out more of her movies, and of Sturges'. A very, very fine film.

A few nights ago I also watched Body of Lies (2008) with my family, another fine film from Ridley Scott. Leonardo di Caprio plays an American operative (I think CIA) working to blow the cover of some terrorists in the Middle East, while his boss back home (Russell Crowe) constantly gets in his way by running more than one operation at a time. Di Caprio is very good in this, but he doesn't quite have the screen presence of some of his co-stars, namely Crowe and Mark Strong, but then Crowe and Strong are two of my favorite actors and rarely disappoint in anything. Crowe here is definitely playing against type. He's sleazy, bureaucratic, and not to be trusted. He also gets the best one-liners in the film. Mark Strong plays the Jordanian (!) prime minister, and borrows a fair share of Crowe's sleaze as well. A good effort all around.

I just watched Amazing Grace for the first time. In almost every respect it's a very good movie but I felt it needed a little more oomph, more drama if you will. Also, the slave perspective wasn't sanitised so much as not given much screen-time (I guess you can only do so much with a PG rating.) Still, it was a good movie with a well-written script, great acting, costume and set design, music etc. Michael Apted is clearly capable of directing a great movie but it's a team effort for all involved. Let's see what happens with VDT.

Amazing Grace has become one of my favorite movies since its release. Beautiful in every respect. Both Ioan Gruffudd and Romola Garai give wonderful performances in it, and I appreciated the light thread of humor that ran throughout the film - it really caught me off guard the first time I saw it. There's a lot of charm to the characters. (I still need to watch the latest BBC adaptation of Emma with Romola; I've heard great things.)

And yeah, it's this movie that gives me a lot of confidence in Apted with VDT. Not only has he done a big production before (though of course, not on the same scale as Narnia), but he's proven he can handle spiritual themes respectfully without watering them down for a mass audience.

In almost every respect it's a very good movie but I felt it needed a little more oomph, more drama if you will. Also, the slave perspective wasn't sanitised so much as not given much screen-time (I guess you can only do so much with a PG rating.)

My thoughts exactly! I do love the film, but mostly because of individual character performances (like, Rufus Sewell and the guy who played John Newton!) rather than because of the way it all fits together, if you will.

The other night I watched part of Zorba the Greek, starring the amazing Anthony Quinn. I didn't know much about the film, other than the back said it was about 'a quiet, bookish English man who goes to Crete and discovers a Greek named Zorba, who shows him how to really live his life -a tale of friendship and finding yourself...etc, etc' -well, let me tell you, that's not how it went down. I couldn't watch much of it, and I haven't finished thinking about it to form much of an opinion, only from what I saw I think this movie earned three Academy Awards because of the novelty of its genre at the time, or Quinn's performance, not the actual content.

It's like a dark, twisted drama with a strangeness to it that doesn't go away. I think the word is hopeless -it kind of sucks the life out of you. I'm sure someone is going to disagree with me but I don't find that sort of reality inspiring in the least; regardless of the lessons learnt from it. One of those films where the director views his characters through a lens with a particular worldview attached in a lab, and tests their environment every so often to see how scarred he can make them; and how much philosophy he can wring out of them. It's sort of like watching the inhabitants of a mental institution after a while, and if that's the story of humanity, well that's fine, but I don't think much of their coping mechanisms. Not really a 'fun, inspiring' tale. It's the kind of story they make you write thematic essays on in school...my old English teacher would love it. Anyhow, I suppose that's quite a bit of writing for someone without much of an opinion.

p.s., lys to answer you from a few pages back, it was indeed the '95 version of A Little Princess that I watched, not the older ones with Shirley Temple ( ) or Audrey Hepburn.

I just finished watching Primer (2004) a seriously low-budget independent film (it only cost US $7,000). Don't go looking for amazing production values, you won't find them. That said, this philosophical techno-thriller/drama has an incredibly complex, intelligent and original premise. The script is well-written and the lead actors provide strong acting. The film doesn't dumb it's language down, so you probably have to know at least advanced Maths and Science to make sense of it but Maths is my least favourite subject and I still managed to enjoy it. The film never bored me despite it's glacial pace.
Primer is rated PG-13 for 'brief language'.
If you want to be challenged to think, and can forgo fantastic production values to enjoy a quality story, this is the film for you.

Anyone seen it?

Trailer:

about Alice in Wonderland: yeah Lys has it right- that's what I meant. I just didn't like how they made it seem that marriage couldn't make you happy you had to go out to the world and have adventures and whatever. Very typical and cliche.

I almost watched Terminator 2 the other night but for some reason our Clearplay wasn't working and the swearing was pretty bad (it's R rated after all) so I just wrote in my journal and read for two hours and our exchange students watched it . And my sisters watched The Spiderwick Chronciles again .

(I still need to watch the latest BBC adaptation of Emma with Romola; I've heard great things.)

Such as the fact that it completely ignores the social realities of Austen's day, is less faithful than the two 90s adaptations (even though it has twice the running time), and features a surprisingly over-the-top performance from Romola? Great. Yes.

Matette, is there really an Audrey Hepburn version of The Little Princess? I'm confused - I don't recall one. If there is, I must certainly see it.

oh Lys . You know I was going to come in here and contradict you . equuestel, BBC's Emma is great- my favorite of all 3 of the adaptions I've seen. There are things here and there I don't like but I felt that it had the overall spirit of the book, more so than the other two movies.

Such as the fact that it completely ignores the social realities of Austen's day, is less faithful than the two 90s adaptations (even though it has twice the running time), and features a surprisingly over-the-top performance from Romola? Great. Yes.

oh Lys . You know I was going to come in here and contradict you . equuestel, BBC's Emma is great- my favorite of all 3 of the adaptions I've seen. There are things here and there I don't like but I felt that it had the overall spirit of the book, more so than the other two movies.

Haha, thanks for both opinions. I've heard about the liberties it takes, and that some purists were miffed. But I am generally quite lax about adaptations, so I'm betting it won't bother me as much - I like seeing new interpretations of old lit.