[Lucien21]

Stranger than Fiction

Once again a funny man tries a straight movie in a Kaufman-esque story that blurs reality and fiction. Jim Carrey has successfully done it more than once in Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine and now it's the turn of WIll Ferrell.

Will's character Harold Crick is an IRS auditor who is as boring as his job. Has a strict routine to his day, no real friends and no life.

Then one day he starts to hear an English woman narrating his life as he says it's "About me. Accurately... and with a better vocabulary." When the voice says he is going to die. Harolds life and routine is thrown asunder.

Kay Effiel (Emma Thomson) is a writer of Tradgedies who has writers block and can't seem to kill off the character in her first novel in 10 years.

Harold Crick is that character.

A good movie about the nature of reality.

I enjoyed it although I did have a couple of problems. I didn't completely get the romance part. I know why he would fall for the rebellious baker character, but I didn't quite buy that she falls for him.

I also wasn't sure about the ending. It was a good ending, but maybe it should have stuck with the original ending. The self sacrificing in the name of art ending.

But overall I really enjoyed it and hope Will Ferrell does more of this stuff and less Bewitched.

[Maquisard]

Scoop was great.

[Melanie68]

Originally Posted by Lucien21

Stranger than Fiction

I also wasn't sure about the ending. It was a good ending, but maybe it should have stuck with the original ending. The self sacrificing in the name of art ending.

Was this a book or play originally?

[Maquisard]

The movie has alternate endings, both of which were shown in the theatrical release.

[Melanie68]

Ah! Thanks.

[Terabin]

Saw The Fountain and liked it quite a bit. All the critics' reviews are the same, and I guess I just feel like everyone needs to give this one a chance with an open mind. Aronofsky is not a director to blow off.

Not to say that this one isn't without its flaws. It's not always an enjoyable movie since the tone is pretty singular throughout. But it's one worth seeing just because I don't think anyone quite has their finger on this film. We'll see what people think of it 15-20 years down the line.

[LeisureSuitedLooney]

Saw Turistas yesterday. It was okay, but much of it came off as a ripoff of Hostel. Also, the ending is rather anticlimactic...it just...ends. It was okay, though. Certainly not the WORST horror film I've seen in a theatre this year. *cough* Pulse *cough*

[MadTricks]

Black Books
First and Second season.
10/10 English comedy.
Best sitcom what i have ever seen.

[RLacey]

Blazing Saddles

I am not a Mel Brooks fan. I think that The Producers (the film, not the musical) is one of the least funny "comedies" that I've ever had the (dis-)pleasure to sit through - a criminal waste of a really clever central idea - and I got sick enough of Spaceballs to give up watching before the end.

That said, I quite like Blazing Saddles. It's not nearly as funny as it so obviously thinks that it is, but there's enough stuff that hits for it to be a satisfying 90 minutes. Mel Brooks' best, then. Aside from the musical version of The Producers (I don't know about the film version of the musical, mind you).

[Tobbe]

Borat

I liked the movie, really funny! I can´t understand how he can pull of those things and not start laughing himself!

[Maquisard]

I think I'd rather cry if

Spoiler:

I had a fat nekkid dude spread his ass over my face.

[Once A Villain]

Apocalypto

Still trying to gather my thoughts about it. I have mixed feelings at this point. It was very entertaining, and had some great moments. I could definitely watch it again. However, I wanted an accurate portrayal of the Mayan civilization, and Gibson doesn't provide that.

The Mayans in this film do not appear to care about anything but bloodshed and speaking in tongues to the gods as they gyrate around. These do not appear to be the Mayans that could have built such grand cities or come up with such an accurate calendar. Also, these Mayans appear to be shocked about an eclipse at one point, but the real Mayans would have known an eclipse was coming. Additionally, the ending of the film lets us know that we are viewing the year 1517, long after the classic Mayan civilization had already fallen.

There are far too many liberties taken with history in this movie to see it as anything other than a work of complete fiction. Looking at it like that, however, it's a nicely crafted piece of work. Having watched ROME Season 1 on DVD again recently, I suppose I was expecting something equally great on the big screen about another ancient civilization. Unfortunately, Apocalypto won't replace ROME, but it's worth seeing.

[guyver1]

I just saw the movie Miami Vice good movie watched it yesterday it kindof reminded me of swat which is also a good movie

[omloflump]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Apocalypto
There are far too many liberties taken with history in this movie to see it as anything other than a work of complete fiction.

And here was me thinking the genius behind Braveheart and the theory that the Jews instigated every single war since the dawn of time was the go-to guy for historical accuracy.

[Spiwak]

You forgot The Patriot.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by omloflump

And here was me thinking the genius behind Braveheart and the theory that the Jews instigated every single war since the dawn of time was the go-to guy for historical accuracy.

Now, now... Many celebrities have made mistakes, and some are even worth despising, but does this mean we should criticize their work without giving it a chance first? I mean, Woody Allen still makes the occasional good film, and he married his stepdaughter. Roman Polanski makes wonderful films like The Pianist, but he sexually molested a child. I try not to judge the creator so much as the work itself, and I can respect an artist for his work even if he has done questionable (or even downright harmful) things. Of course, you can do as you please.

Originally Posted by Spiwak

You forgot The Patriot.

That wasn't Gibson. The "genius" behind The Patriot was Roland Emmerich, director of such classics as Universal Soldier, ID4: Independence Day, and the 1998 Hollywood version of Godzilla.

[Spiwak]

I know he wasn't the director...but he still participated in the movie. At least Heath Ledger has the excuse of being an upstart in America and needing any work he could get.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Spiwak

I know he wasn't the director...but he still participated in the movie. At least Heath Ledger has the excuse of being an upstart in America and needing any work he could get.

Yeah, you're not kidding. Ha ha. That movie was such a joke. The only things I got slight enjoyment out of in the movie were Tom Wilkinson (one of my favorite actors) as Cornwallis, and the fact that it made the French into saviors of the day. Many Americans despise the French, so I like to see the looks on their faces when a recent film reminds them that if it wasn't for the French, we wouldn't have the country we have today. Which, ironically, probably makes the French wish they had never lifted a finger in the first place.

[Spiwak]

I thought everyone loved America and we're the best and everybody should be like us.

[omloflump]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Now, now... Many celebrities have made mistakes, and some are even worth despising, but does this mean we should criticize their work without giving it a chance first?

Actually, I was simply pointing out that he hasn't got the greatest track record when it comes to historical accuracy, and I wasn't judging the film in the least. (Originally I just mentioned Braveheart.) But this is certainly an interesting issue. Personally, I would judge Apocalypto on its own merit if I were to see it (I won't, though), and I have no problem watching Woody Allen or Polanski films, but when you get to someone like Gary Glitter, it all becomes a little murkier. Well, Gary Glitter would be rubbish even if he didn't punch severely below his weight, but you get my point. An interesting example to use (well, borrow, as other people have pointed this out) is Marvin Gaye, whose song, "What's Going On?", addressed the world's problems with a strong social conscience. You may even hear it on the radio one day and, touched by its message, ask yourself, "Yeah, what is going on?". Then, of course, you learn that he ritually beat his wife around the time the song was recorded, and thus wonder what authority a wife-beater has of asking what's wrong with the world. Perhaps his dad took the notion of "poetic justice" a bit too far, but it's still a legitimate question even now.

Someone like Phil Spector would be easier to stomach in a situation like this, as he never (as far as I know) expressed the ills of murder in his work and was only a behind-the-scenes songwriter (you could ignore the production and focus on the performance if it was really bugging you), but it will still make people uncomfortable when approaching his work. In such extreme cases (and even in non-extreme ones), it's hard to get rid of that back-of-the-head tainting. Then again, I guess now we know that Pete Townshend really does know what it's like to be the bad man.