« crash and burn | Main | the morning news (brought to you by Folgers) »

3 hours, lost forever

3 hours, lost forever

I was forced to watch Cast Away tonight. What a piece of crap. I just lost three good hours of my life that could have been spent blogging or sleeping or playing with belly button lint.

Maybe it's Tom Hanks. I hated Forrest Gump, too. Which probably makes me the only person in America to hate that movie. Or maybe I'm just totally uncultured when it comes to films. I have never seen Titanic. Or Gone With the Wind. Or It's A Wonderful Life. Yet, I've seen Army of Darkness 100 times.

Does this say something horrible about me?

Posted by on January 5, 2002 09:40 PM |

Comments

Not at all horrible. Why would anyone willingly see Titanic? I liked Evil Dead 2 best, though.

Posted by: Persephone | January 5, 2002 10:32 PM

Army of Darkness is a fucking kick-ass movie, that's why you've seen it 100 times. I've never seen Gone With the Wind either, why should I sit through a 4 hour boring-ass film when I can watch Bruce Campbell kicking midevil demon booty?

Posted by: Keith | January 5, 2002 11:08 PM

tom hanks took a wrong turn after, well, "bosom buddies" really.

Posted by: miss b | January 5, 2002 11:25 PM

Okay, I hated that too. And everyone I saw it with was weeping ... including my father. Which really shook my faith in masculine stability. Although, it did give me the idea to have a pet ball.

Posted by: melly | January 5, 2002 11:42 PM

Okay, I'm one of them folk that liked Titanic but I've always had a facination with sinking ships. However I haven't seen "Wonderful Life" OR "Gone with the Wind" Cause frankly, Scarlet...I could give a damn. Anyway...I liked Cast Away until the end...the end just sucked.

Posted by: Nicole | January 6, 2002 12:00 AM

I'll play the token film defender. (At least my degree will be put to use somehow.) Gone With the Wind is a great movie, not at all like Titanic. It's just so large, epic on such a grand scale, and it doesn't rely on computer effects. It's all just there. See it if only to be reminded of the kinds of movies we USED to make. The story's pretty good too. It's not the sappy romance you're probably imagining. The heroine isn't very likable. Neither is the hero. And its portrayal of the Civil Way and the "Old South" is interesting, to say the least.

See It's a Wonderful Life at least once. Dont' watch the crappy Turner-ized color version; go rent the old black and white. Think about this: during the bar scene where Jimmy Stewart cries and contemplates suicide (one of the most amazing performances ever captured on film), Capra had his camera too far away and missed the closeup. He asked Stewart afterwards if he could repeat the scene, but Stewart couldn't do it the same way again. So Capra stayed up all night, blowing up each and every frame of the scene so he could use that moment. It's not a cheesy Christmas movie. It's about a guy who doesn't realize what blessings he has and has to be forced to see that. And besides, the scene where he and Donna Reed finally kiss makes me weak in the knees. (Nobody has chemistry like that, nowadays.)

Titanic did suck though. You were right to avoid that one.

Okay, that's my highbrow defense of the cinema for today. Now I'm going to go watch "Army of Darkness" a few more times. "Hail to the King, baby."

Posted by: Kris | January 6, 2002 02:09 AM

I grew up watching It's A Wonderful Life. Which is a pretty good movie (and like Kris says, you have to watch the black and white version) in and of itself. (The only part I don't like is the very very end line. Even though it involves Clarence who I did like. I just think it was sick and wrong to make a sequel about Clarence.) I can't defend it as well, as Kris, but hey, good movie. Worth seeing at least once.

Gone With The Wind: Saw that once, and fortunately for me, I got to see it when my local theatre was showing classic movies for 50 cents in the afternoon because it was their fiftieth anniversary. So, I got to see it the way North America saw it originally, and after I'd read the book many many times. And, it wasn't as bad as I thought it was. The scene that struck me the most was the scene where Scarlet comes home and you see her walk into the room where her mother (having just died) is laid out. It's eerie and it didn't strike me as being one of those things you would expect from a Golden Era Hollywood movie.

Titanic: I actually think....that it didn't suck. It is, however, a mediocre love story smashed onto a documentary. The technical detail which they show the ship in is amazing. My great-grandmother came over on it's sister ship, (The Olympic, I believe. I can never remember the difference between the Olympic and the Brittanic, only that one of them never got used much except as a hospital ship during World War I, and the other one sank also had some kind of accident, though not so major as the Titanic.) and we have a series of old photographs showing her on board the ship, in front of the doors to the dining area....and all the shots we saw in the movie look pretty much identical to the photographs we have. So it's kinda cool. Disregarding the technical detail, I think the movie's strongest points date from the moment the ship hits the iceberg. If you disregard the Kate/Leo stuff going on, and look at the different fates of different passengers, its a touching and well done account of the sinking. I admit I cried, but not because of the Kate/Leo shit. More because of the children whose mother puts them to bed (because they are trapped in steerage and there's no way out) and tries to tell them a story of Tir nan Og. Or the elderly couple that embrace in their bed and go down together. Because that stuff was real. Or when Kathy Bates character (the unsinkable Molly Brown) tries to get a sailor to turn the lifeboat around so they can pick up people, and he won't. There were a lot of good moments in this movie; it's just unfortunate that it was the mediocre love story that was the focus of the marketing and ticket sales, and eventually the focus of the Oscars. I'd really recommend just renting it, and watching only the second video tape.

Army of Darkness: That's a classic too. Or it should be. I'm not sure which ending I like better. I mean, the S-Mart ending is amusing, but so is watching Bruce Campbell wake up too many years into the future.

In other final shocking news: Only a month ago did I finally lose my Ferris Bueller virginity. (And thus lost one of the handiest ice breakers in the history of the world. "You know, I have never seen Ferris Bueller's Day Off." Very handy, that was.)

Posted by: PixelFish | January 6, 2002 02:36 AM

Best Comments Ever.

You all proved your points so well that I will make the attempt to see Wonderful Life and Gone With the Wind. I'll still pass on Titanic, though.

I like the S-Mart ending best.

Name's Ash. Housewares.

Posted by: michele | January 6, 2002 05:26 AM

Personally, I hate Sam Rami. The dialogue in amy of darkness kicks ass though. Ill stick to the real evil dead's

Posted by: EdgartheBent | January 6, 2002 06:30 AM

and here i thought i was the only person who hated forrest gump. i'm sorry, it stunk.

i've gotten used to being the odd-woman-out when it comes to movies, though. i'm the only one on the planet (apparently) who didn't like the matrix. first year philosophy dumbed down as far as it could go. so sad.

titanic was an embarrassment.

i was OK with castaway, though -- i liked wilson. ;-)

Posted by: elise | January 6, 2002 08:05 AM

Adam doesn't like the Matrix.

Posted by: PixelFish | January 6, 2002 08:19 AM

The Matrix was all style, no substance. The Keanu Reeves factor dumbs down any movie significantly.

Posted by: michele | January 6, 2002 08:22 AM

Best part of Cast Away was knowing that Tom Hanks didn't end up with Helen Hunt. I think she's a horrible actress, but not as bad as Ms. Paltrow (augh!).

Posted by: Nikki | January 6, 2002 05:01 PM

Pixelfish - they made a SEQUEL about Clarence? Are you serious? That'd be a bit silly. I mean, I like the old guy, but personally I thought that the angel stuff (especially at the beginning, before he appears, with the blinking stars and all) was a bit cheesy. Odd. I had a friend in college who could do a perfect imitation of Jimmy Stewart yelling, "Merry Christmas, Mr. Potter!" I love that stuff.

Interesting trivia: did you know that the two cops (the ones who sing "I love you truly" outside their honeymoon window) were named Bert and Ernie? And that's where the names in Sesame Street came from? Where the hell did I learn all this "It's a Wonderful Life" trivia? No idea.

I think my most memorable "Gone With the Wind" scene is the one where she walks down by the railway station looking for the doctor and there are hundreds of wounded men lying on the ground, as far as the eye can see. Damn, I wish I had seen it in the theater.

You're right about "Titanic", and I take back a small amount of my "sucking" comments. If you view it as a historical re-creation, it's amazing. Even the love story isn't all bad; there are a few nice moments where the two of them have chemistry (and no dialogue to screw it up). I think a lot of my distaste for it comes from some articles I read about James Cameron, and how he's pretty much the biggest asshole ever.

I have an Ash doll. My boyfriend got it for me for Christmas last year. It's my most treasured possession. He has a chainsaw and a boomstick and a Necronomicon. Oh, and a tiny little Ash with a pitchfork. "How's about some hot chocolate?!"

Posted by: Kris | January 6, 2002 05:47 PM

Well now you've done it. We have a date to watch Titanic next weekend. I'm going to try to view it from a film making point of view, and try to get over the whole love story scenario.

Right now I'm watching Willy Wonka. Now there's a work of art.

Posted by: michele | January 6, 2002 08:13 PM

Anon watching It's a Wonderful Life: "jump dammit, JUMP"

I'm wondering if it's an "american thing" to watch that tripe every year. No thanks, Bernard and the Genie is Christmas enough for me every year.

The one plus of Titanic is Jack's icy ending. The sicko in me really appreicates a pretty boy dying.

Kris has Ash? And I'm too far away to steal it. Damn. AoD was the first DVD I bought. I ain't dumb :)

Posted by: anon | January 6, 2002 08:35 PM

Ugh. Don't get me started on "Willy Wonka". I'm a Dahl purist, as you know, and what that movie did to the book was a travesty. I just hope the new remake will blow it out of the water.

You can generally find the Ash dolls at comic book type stores (the kind that sell Buffy stuff too). I saw recently that they also have Bad Ash, the King of the Deadites. He's on the list for my birthday in March. :)

Posted by: Kris | January 6, 2002 08:53 PM

I have the bad Ash. His arm broke the first day I had him.

Kris, while I love the Chocolate Factory book, I still think the movie was a great joyride even thought it took a lot of liberties. Tell me about this remake, though. I thought that was just a rumor.

Posted by: michele | January 6, 2002 10:03 PM

I came out of the Matrix, thinking that the visuals were cool, and I had a lot of black clothing envy, but....."I dreamed/wrote that better."

Why didn't the machines try using whales to make their little batteries? That would have been more interesting. And think of all the energy you could get from a whale. At the same time you'd save some of those endangered species and wouldn't have to worry about making a "too perfect" world.

I bought it anyways...because it was sorta fun. And like I said. Lots of black clothing envy.

RE: James Cameron. He is an asshole. He also seems to be the Man of Many Sequels. Half of his IMDB filmography reads with roman numerals.

Here's the IMDB entry for Clarence:

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0099276

I've also seen the shitty remake of It's A Wonderful Life where the main character is a woman instead of a man. Somethings you just shouldn't tamper with.

You know what comes out on DVD tomorrow that I really really want? M*A*S*H!!!! The movie that the show is based on....although the two are somewhat different in tone. Both are subversive and funny but in somewhat different ways. The show seemed a bit less acidic than the movie. I really love the movie though. Donald Sutherland and Elliot Gould are great in it.

Posted by: PixelFish | January 7, 2002 05:06 AM

"m*a*s*h and e.t. are my 2 favoritest movies of all time.e.t. as much as i hate steven spielberg, how he is choosing to re-release it is very well p-layed. he's strategically fixing e.t.'s lip movements to match his words. he's taking out the guns and replacing them with walkie talkies like he originally wanted. and he's adding a scene with elliot and e.t in the bath. and if you do the math and take into account inflation, e.t. is still numero uno in the box office. not titanic. tanic sucked. tom hanks sucks. his son, however, has an incredible gift of comic timing, i.e. "get over it". it's not a great movie by any means, but i am a sucker for teen shakespeare.

rent "state of grace" with sean penn, gary oldman and ed harris. irish mob movie in hell's kitchen. good stuff, if you like that thing.

rent "boondock saints", even if you don't. it's got that kid from "powder", but i swear it's good. swear word good. and you can only get it at blockbuster.

p.s. i tried to go back and fix my errors, but it started eating up non-errors. sorry.

Posted by: john doe | January 7, 2002 06:07 AM

Boondock Saints is one of the best movies ever. We watch it at least once a month.

In the remake of ET, they are taking out the part where the secret service guys have guns. Terrorism and all, you know. I hate this "let's edit the world post-9/11" bullshit.

Posted by: michele | January 7, 2002 07:30 AM

He's also taking out the part where Eliot calls his brother "Penis-breath" and where one of the kids wants to go as a terrorist for Halloween. Spielberg's gone soft.

I'm disappointed about Bad Ash. I had high hopes for him.

The remake, last I heard, was happening. But lately I've been hearing rumors that the director has been changed, which isn't a good sign. I've been planning to e-mail my Dahl contacts and get the real scoop, but the last month or so has been too full of other things. I'll let you know if I do find out anything.

Posted by: Kris | January 7, 2002 09:43 AM

Okay, I'm late here, but tell me this all isn't true! A remake of ET?? of Willy Wonka?? Has the world gone mad?? If you're remaking your own damn movies, maybe it's time to find a new career path. When my sister was a kid, she watched Willy Wonka and The Incredible Shrinking Woman (with Charles Grodin and Lily Tomlin - truly an odd little movie) EVERY DAY FOR 2 YEARS. I'm not kidding. I can't watch either movie now.

Posted by: Persephone | January 7, 2002 12:28 PM

spielberg is taking out the guns because he never wanted them in there in the first place. the part about the kid going as a terrorist was actually something they did along time ago for the televised version. none of these decisions were based on the attacks, as most of them were done before they attacks occured. except for penis breath. hadn't heard about that. makes sense though. i don't want my four year old twins walking out of the theater thinking it's funny to call me penis breath. not til they're five.

Posted by: john doe | January 7, 2002 07:16 PM

Not a remake of E.T., Persephone. Just a re-release. Like the Special Edition Star Wars a few years ago. He's just adding in a few scenes he cut, cleaning up the look and sound, and then making a few (controversial) changes, like we said. Money grubbing bastard. Not that I wouldn't like to see E.T. in the theater again, but I want to see it the way I remember it.

As for Wonka, it's not supposed to be a remake so much as just another version. The original one really isn't very much like the book. Dahl wrote the script but then they took it out of his hands and had somebody else rip it to shreds. (Hence Wonka's penchant for literary quotation, which is never in the original story.) The whole fake-Slugworth and stealing-Fizzy-Lifting-Drinks were added as well. Charlie would never do that! And don't even get me started on "Ommpa-Loompa Doompity Do". shudder The original film was financed by the Quaker Oats company (who make lots of candy), which tells you what their priorities were. Gene Wilder wasn't even Dahl's choice for Wonka; he wanted the English comedian Spike Milligan. (Wilder is nothing like the description of Wonka in the book. He's not mean and he's not a psycho.) Anyway, I could go on and on. You get my point. So anyway, the new version is supposed to be more faithful to the book. It sounds like they're having pre-production problems though, so it's probably not worth getting bothered about just yet.

Posted by: Kris | January 7, 2002 08:25 PM

Trust me, you don't want to see Titanic. The one film where I spent the entire time muttering "For heaven's sake, SINK, dammit - how long can this stuff take?" I was sooo grateful for that iceberg.

Posted by: Jan | January 8, 2002 10:04 AM