I am think about reading The Myth of the First Three Years by John T. Bruer as a counterpoint to What's Going on in There? and Rare Earth by Peter Douglas Ward and Donald Brownlee as a counterpoint to Probability 1. Anybody think these books are worth checking out, especially in relation to what I've already read?
Ah, Jim...'fraid we don't always agree. TLW might have been disappointing as a follow-up to JP, but it was still better than (oh my)GODZILLA. The only memorable scene was when the old guy goes fishing on the jetty and catches the Big Lizard - and that scene was borrowed from JAWS. And, anyway, what's your evidence for saying this is a copycat pair?
Watched LAKE PLACID last evening and quite enjoyed it. It helps if you accept it early-on as a comedy with a few gory thrills. Dialogue-wise, I could have done without the obviously designed to shock foul language, e.g., having a former Golden Girl emit some of the worst. But on the whole I'd say it was a little better than mediocre. "We trapped it with our chopper..." Its sense of humour puts it streets ahead of the Big Snake Movie.
Jim, I was looking up THE RELIC at IMDb and the producer's name, Gale Anne Hurd , caught my attention (I have this habit of reading all the opening credits of a movie). I wasn't quite sure why, so I looked her up. As you can see, she also produced ALIENS, THE GHOST AND THE DARKNESS, and TREMORS. What's more, VIRUS looks like it'll fit this list too, from what I read of it. Obviously a lady who knows a good plot when she sees one.
Regarding generalizing an actor, I'd have to agree. Just because you find someone uniformly wooden doesn't mean a movie can't succeed in spite of him/her (heck, sometimes lightning strikes twice).
While I appreciate the "apples and oranges" sentiment, and agree with it to a limited extent, I do believe it is possible for a movie to unforgiveably butcher a book. I don't personally think this was the case with Emma, but that's probably material for another post.
Oscar talk . . . I actually liked all the nominees that year, but wouldn't say any of them were candidates for "greatest movie ever made". But still, a fairly uniform crop. I'd have to rank 'em like so (based entirely on the arbitrary scale, "the order in which I would rewatch them"):
Four Weddings and a Funeral
The Shawshank Redemption
Pulp Fiction
Forrest Gump
Quiz Show
I actually think Quiz Show might be the best of the bunch, but it has the least rewatchability.
And yes, Forrest Gump was overrated, but I do think it has suffered unfairly (as much as a "best picture" can suffer, anyway) at the hands of the zealous "over-sentimentality must die" camp.
Okay, I'll have to check out Entrapment. Expect to be thoroughly chastised if it's as bad as everybody-but-you says it is.
Yeah, I did see Dante's Peak on the big screen. IIRC, Volcano generally got better reviews, which baffled me. DP at least had some tension, while V was pretty darn relaxing. And Tommy Lee Jones, who I normally like, mailed that one in (but how could he not; we're not really talking Shakespeare here).
As for the Deep Impact thing, I am not saying I liked it. Just that I'm forced to give it the edge over Armageddon. I was probably in the wrong mood when I saw it, because normally I can suspend my disbelief pretty darn high, but I just couldn't do it for Armageddon. I couldn't get past, "They're going to send these guys into space?!" Once I had to believe it was harder to learn how to use that drill than to become an astronaut, they kinda lost me. Must have been feeling particularly picky. I did like the scene where they were all making their list of demands, though. Okay, Armaggedon was more fun, for sure, but I don't think it was better. Now what the hell does that mean?
I don't think it's rational to disregard all movies just because you don't like a particular actor--in your case, ALL Gwyneth Paltrow movies. That's as bad as saying you like all movies with Dustin Hoffman, and he's been in some stinkers (think "Sphere").
I also don't agree with comparing the quality of books with the quality of movies (Emma). Apples and oranges-each try to accomplish different things using completely different methods.
I do agree with your assessment that "Forrest Gump" is overrated. But I'll have to agree with the first commentator that it's message is not "dumb people are better".
Certainly the Oscars have a history of overlooking certain films, but was "Pulp Fiction" REALLY the best film that year?
I've basically been burnt out on Gwyneth Paltrow as well. I just don't see what the fuss is about (and I didn't like Emma either). However, I did like Sliding Doors. You might consider giving that one a try. As for Forrest Gump, I wouldn't say that it was the best movie ever, but I don't think it was saying that dumb people are better or worse. It was simply a well written story about an ordinary man living an extraordinary life.
OKAY PEOPLE, IT SEEMS TO ME I'M GIVING YOU THE WRONG IDEA OF WHAT THIS LIST IS ABOUT. SPIRITUAL ORGASM FOR ME MEANS THE FEELING OF ENORMOUS SPIRITUAL SATISFACTION, A VERY PURE FEELING OF JOY...IT HAS A BIT LESS TO DO WITH HAVING SEX... (THOUGH I SEE THE CONNECTION).
MY SEXUAL ORGASM LIST WOULD PROBABLY INCLUDE A LOT OF MIKE OLDFIELD AND MASSIVE ATTACK STUFF...
Ah, sorry to hear that about Dream Hunters. I'll probably still check it out, just to complete the set. But at least now you've made waiting tolerable. :)
I do intend to check out the rest of his stuff one of these days.
I think you can safely take my word for it that Relic is a waste of time and money. Just put an "according to Jim" parenthetical note after the list item. :) I checked, and both came out in 1997.
Too bad the rule isn't no more than two years apart. Lake Placid and Anaconda are practically the same movie, except that Lake Placid was mediocre, while Anaconda was worse-than-mediocre.
You've brought to light a difficulty with this list: you have to have seen both movies, and one of them might be real excrement. I've seen MIMIC, and I concur with your opinion - quite good: some really spine-tingling moments. Now, in order to assess this pair, I'm going to have to watch RELIC, which you've made sound less than inviting.
And, yes, no more than a year apart I should think. Damn! - now I'm going to have to check release dates.
Jim, I just know I shouldn't try to brainify a no-brainer pure entertainment movie, but...astronaut-wise, the guys were just passengers; all they had to learn was how to use their spacesuits (do their drilling in spacesuits) which is what we see them training for - we don't see them training to be pilots.
What the hell does it mean? It means that unless you think DI is a has-brainer movie, and so should be judged by different criteria, ARMAGEDDON is the better movie.
I actually wasn't overly impressed by it. I think the Sandman stuff works better as short pieces. This one wasn't terribly long, but longer than a short story.
As for other Gaiman, I've liked all of them. Good Omens, Star Dust and Neverwhere. All 3 had different feels and were all quite separate of the Sandman books. His books of short pieces (stories, poems, etc) are also worth checking out.
Jim, we're all saving our effusive congratulations until we see how well the new beast works. Looks good so far. Oops! nearly got effusive. If you messed up, it'll just be effu.
No, no, no, Jim! ENTRAPMENT wasn't lousy, just absurdly cast - Sean Connery's getting a bit long in the tooth to play romantic leads. Other than that it was engaging and had an exciting action climax - mind you, the romantic climax was disappointing, but that was only appropriate, I thought.
DANTE'S PEAK had excellent fx - did you see it on the big screen? But DEEP IMPACT? - surely you jest! - ARMAGEDDON is one of the most underrated movies of recent times. Much more entertaining (watched in no-brainer mode) than DI. "Daddy..."...surf's up, daddy...
I'm not generalizing really. These are the Gwyneth Paltrow movies I've seen: Shakespeare in Love, A Perfect Murder, Emma, Sliding Doors. I thought all of those were overrated. I have not seen "Hard Eight" but probably will though I don't consider it a Paltrow movie in the same sense. To me, a Gwyneth Paltrow movie is one in which she has a major role or is considered a selling point. As to the book to movie thing. There are MANY MANY MANY books to movies I love, including "A Room With A View", "Howards End", the "Pride and Prejudice" mini-series, "Persuasion", "Fight Club", "Out of Africa", the list goes on and on. I think in this case the adaptation sucked. Even if Pulp Fiction wasn't, Shawshank should've taken Forrest out. Isn't it like everyone's favorite film?
I am think about reading The Myth of the First Three Years by John T. Bruer as a counterpoint to What's Going on in There? and Rare Earth by Peter Douglas Ward and Donald Brownlee as a counterpoint to Probability 1. Anybody think these books are worth checking out, especially in relation to what I've already read?
What did you think of How the Mind Works? I read and enjoyed Pinker's The Language Instinct, and was wondering if I should read some more.
Usually. :-)
Ah, Jim...'fraid we don't always agree. TLW might have been disappointing as a follow-up to JP, but it was still better than (oh my)GODZILLA. The only memorable scene was when the old guy goes fishing on the jetty and catches the Big Lizard - and that scene was borrowed from JAWS. And, anyway, what's your evidence for saying this is a copycat pair?
Watched LAKE PLACID last evening and quite enjoyed it. It helps if you accept it early-on as a comedy with a few gory thrills. Dialogue-wise, I could have done without the obviously designed to shock foul language, e.g., having a former Golden Girl emit some of the worst. But on the whole I'd say it was a little better than mediocre. "We trapped it with our chopper..." Its sense of humour puts it streets ahead of the Big Snake Movie.
Jim, I was looking up THE RELIC at IMDb and the producer's name, Gale Anne Hurd , caught my attention (I have this habit of reading all the opening credits of a movie). I wasn't quite sure why, so I looked her up. As you can see, she also produced ALIENS, THE GHOST AND THE DARKNESS, and TREMORS. What's more, VIRUS looks like it'll fit this list too, from what I read of it. Obviously a lady who knows a good plot when she sees one.
Here's one . . . Godzilla 1 vs. The Lost World 2.
Regarding generalizing an actor, I'd have to agree. Just because you find someone uniformly wooden doesn't mean a movie can't succeed in spite of him/her (heck, sometimes lightning strikes twice).
While I appreciate the "apples and oranges" sentiment, and agree with it to a limited extent, I do believe it is possible for a movie to unforgiveably butcher a book. I don't personally think this was the case with Emma, but that's probably material for another post.
Oscar talk . . . I actually liked all the nominees that year, but wouldn't say any of them were candidates for "greatest movie ever made". But still, a fairly uniform crop. I'd have to rank 'em like so (based entirely on the arbitrary scale, "the order in which I would rewatch them"):
I actually think Quiz Show might be the best of the bunch, but it has the least rewatchability.
And yes, Forrest Gump was overrated, but I do think it has suffered unfairly (as much as a "best picture" can suffer, anyway) at the hands of the zealous "over-sentimentality must die" camp.
:-) Thanks bertie. It's nice to know that all the late nights and wrist-pain aren't for nothing.
How 'bout Relic vs. Mimic? Not very challenging, though . . . Mimic was actually quite good, while Relic was quite boring.
I assume, to qualify for this list, the movie pairs have to have release dates that are in fairly close proximity?
Okay, I'll have to check out Entrapment. Expect to be thoroughly chastised if it's as bad as everybody-but-you says it is.
Yeah, I did see Dante's Peak on the big screen. IIRC, Volcano generally got better reviews, which baffled me. DP at least had some tension, while V was pretty darn relaxing. And Tommy Lee Jones, who I normally like, mailed that one in (but how could he not; we're not really talking Shakespeare here).
As for the Deep Impact thing, I am not saying I liked it. Just that I'm forced to give it the edge over Armageddon. I was probably in the wrong mood when I saw it, because normally I can suspend my disbelief pretty darn high, but I just couldn't do it for Armageddon. I couldn't get past, "They're going to send these guys into space?!" Once I had to believe it was harder to learn how to use that drill than to become an astronaut, they kinda lost me. Must have been feeling particularly picky. I did like the scene where they were all making their list of demands, though. Okay, Armaggedon was more fun, for sure, but I don't think it was better. Now what the hell does that mean?
I don't think it's rational to disregard all movies just because you don't like a particular actor--in your case, ALL Gwyneth Paltrow movies. That's as bad as saying you like all movies with Dustin Hoffman, and he's been in some stinkers (think "Sphere").
I also don't agree with comparing the quality of books with the quality of movies (Emma). Apples and oranges-each try to accomplish different things using completely different methods.
I do agree with your assessment that "Forrest Gump" is overrated. But I'll have to agree with the first commentator that it's message is not "dumb people are better".
Certainly the Oscars have a history of overlooking certain films, but was "Pulp Fiction" REALLY the best film that year?
I've basically been burnt out on Gwyneth Paltrow as well. I just don't see what the fuss is about (and I didn't like Emma either). However, I did like Sliding Doors. You might consider giving that one a try. As for Forrest Gump, I wouldn't say that it was the best movie ever, but I don't think it was saying that dumb people are better or worse. It was simply a well written story about an ordinary man living an extraordinary life.
Don't get me wrong, it wasn't bad by any means. It just wasn't as good as a lot of his other work.
OKAY PEOPLE, IT SEEMS TO ME I'M GIVING YOU THE WRONG IDEA OF WHAT THIS LIST IS ABOUT. SPIRITUAL ORGASM FOR ME MEANS THE FEELING OF ENORMOUS SPIRITUAL SATISFACTION, A VERY PURE FEELING OF JOY...IT HAS A BIT LESS TO DO WITH HAVING SEX... (THOUGH I SEE THE CONNECTION).
MY SEXUAL ORGASM LIST WOULD PROBABLY INCLUDE A LOT OF MIKE OLDFIELD AND MASSIVE ATTACK STUFF...
Ah, sorry to hear that about Dream Hunters. I'll probably still check it out, just to complete the set. But at least now you've made waiting tolerable. :)
I do intend to check out the rest of his stuff one of these days.
I think you can safely take my word for it that Relic is a waste of time and money. Just put an "according to Jim" parenthetical note after the list item. :) I checked, and both came out in 1997.
Too bad the rule isn't no more than two years apart. Lake Placid and Anaconda are practically the same movie, except that Lake Placid was mediocre, while Anaconda was worse-than-mediocre.
Okay, you win. Armageddon was better. I was just being crotchety.
You've brought to light a difficulty with this list: you have to have seen both movies, and one of them might be real excrement. I've seen MIMIC, and I concur with your opinion - quite good: some really spine-tingling moments. Now, in order to assess this pair, I'm going to have to watch RELIC, which you've made sound less than inviting.
And, yes, no more than a year apart I should think. Damn! - now I'm going to have to check release dates.
Jim, I just know I shouldn't try to brainify a no-brainer pure entertainment movie, but...astronaut-wise, the guys were just passengers; all they had to learn was how to use their spacesuits (do their drilling in spacesuits) which is what we see them training for - we don't see them training to be pilots.
What the hell does it mean? It means that unless you think DI is a has-brainer movie, and so should be judged by different criteria, ARMAGEDDON is the better movie.
Warped in a good way or warped in a bad way? (I've read all of those by the way.)
I actually wasn't overly impressed by it. I think the Sandman stuff works better as short pieces. This one wasn't terribly long, but longer than a short story.
As for other Gaiman, I've liked all of them. Good Omens, Star Dust and Neverwhere. All 3 had different feels and were all quite separate of the Sandman books. His books of short pieces (stories, poems, etc) are also worth checking out.
Jim, we're all saving our effusive congratulations until we see how well the new beast works. Looks good so far. Oops! nearly got effusive. If you messed up, it'll just be effu.
No, no, no, Jim! ENTRAPMENT wasn't lousy, just absurdly cast - Sean Connery's getting a bit long in the tooth to play romantic leads. Other than that it was engaging and had an exciting action climax - mind you, the romantic climax was disappointing, but that was only appropriate, I thought.
DANTE'S PEAK had excellent fx - did you see it on the big screen? But DEEP IMPACT? - surely you jest! - ARMAGEDDON is one of the most underrated movies of recent times. Much more entertaining (watched in no-brainer mode) than DI. "Daddy..."...surf's up, daddy...
I'm not generalizing really. These are the Gwyneth Paltrow movies I've seen: Shakespeare in Love, A Perfect Murder, Emma, Sliding Doors. I thought all of those were overrated. I have not seen "Hard Eight" but probably will though I don't consider it a Paltrow movie in the same sense. To me, a Gwyneth Paltrow movie is one in which she has a major role or is considered a selling point. As to the book to movie thing. There are MANY MANY MANY books to movies I love, including "A Room With A View", "Howards End", the "Pride and Prejudice" mini-series, "Persuasion", "Fight Club", "Out of Africa", the list goes on and on. I think in this case the adaptation sucked. Even if Pulp Fiction wasn't, Shawshank should've taken Forrest out. Isn't it like everyone's favorite film?