 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Hi,
if you liked the first, you will prob like this. The surprise of discovery was a key part of the first movie ("and this morning you knew we were the only intelligent species on the planet"). Not much to be done about that. But the special effects are as good as money can buy, and it's fun to see that odd vision of our world come to life once again. Buy a big tub of popcorn, check your brain at the door, Saturday matinee here we come!
Follow Ups:
was seeing the trailer for LOTRII.
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." --George W. Bush, July 26, 2000
GRRRRRR!
People actually applauded when the LOTR trailer appeared. Best part of MIBII fersher.
(nt)
Notice how all the blockbusters are geared to the intellectual level of children? Where's the adult version? I thought of this analogy: assemble a very expensive, state-of-the-art audio system---and play children's music on it exclusively.
Some are, some aren't (i.e., "geared to the intellectual level of children"). I would agree that many so-called blockbusters are focused on mindless entertainment and some are embarassingly vapid, but there are others which have deeper ambitions and some which are even quite thought provoking. Examples: "AI" (the posthumous Kubrick undertaking completed by Spielberg), "Minority Report" (again by Spiielberg and in this instance a failure on a number of levels, but a thought provoking premise nonetheless), "Signs" (the upcoming M. Night Shaymalan film looks thought provoking and his track record suggests more than just popcorn fare).I'm sure that many other summer blockbuster-style films could be excluded from the mindless-kid's-fare classification if you thought about it awhile. It's just my opinion, but there are any number of features geared for adult audiences which are action-packed and thrilling, unless one happens to be among those folks who only consider pretentious art-house movies and plotless talking head flicks worthy of adult interest.
AuPh
It's like choosing between Coke or Pepsi; both products claim to know what's best for the consumer by excluding choice, but since individual tastes vary I'm happy when I see a broader selection that reflects a wide range of flavors.BTW, that cartoon was funny, but it lacks Moxie! ;^)
AuPh
your music analogy is already true - guess which acts are selling out madison square garden and booking time at abbey road.
Hi,
studios require theaters to play films; indefinitely. They do this to drive up the gross from a film, to improve Oscar chances. This also squeezes out small market films, like those geared for adults. In the long run, their audience grows up and leaves.I will say, that old fashioned movies didn't do well for a long time. I adored A Walk in the Clouds, it was a wonderful film done in classic Hollywood style with great actors (the role Keanu played fit his understated style)....and there were 3 people in the theater. It's one of my favorites, gonna get it on dvd one of these days.But I suspect that the industry ground out so much hamburger that the steaks got lost in the the detritus. But what else can you expect from the people that said the VCR would be the end of their industry? That lethal little box has made them a billion in profits, and may someday add another billion to the pile. Idiots.
The more intellectual the film, the more likely it is to only have three members in the audience. And that's a 7PM weekend showing, too. Not the 11AM matinee on thursday. Also in that case I'll probably be the youngest person in the audience. I'm 24, BTW. (often the case during thursday night for the Cleveland Orchestra at Severence Hall. Or rather, when I attended semi-regularly with my girlfriend. My old boss used to have season tickets, and for a couple of seasons, he could only rarely attend. So I lucked out. :-) )
The little films still get made and released and often make a profit, but probably not when compared with summer blockbusters. Why? Because folks are looking for F-U-N!!! Parents are looking for films that can entertain themselves and the kids who are out of school. Kids and older teens aren't looking for intellectual "foo" either; what they want is something to take their minds off of the normal presures of being an adolescent.Small-market films are much cheaper to make, more likely to be considered at Oscar time, and do their best business in the Spring and Fall (i.e., when school is back in session). Small films still thrive because actors who typically make the Big Bucks in blockbusters often take cuts in their salaries to appear in "prestige" pictures in the hopes of getting Oscar attention and thereby making the box-office demand even higher. Note: As I see it, a star's demand is probably based on how well he/she "opens" a picture; the amount of fall-off from week to week can therefore be attributed to the movie's direction and scripting.
So, while I will concede your point about some studios and certain "big-wigs" in Hollywood trying to contract theaters to show certain big-budget films ad infinitem (i.e., George Lucas comes to mind instantly!), I can't agree with your glaring generalities about the whole industry being composed of "idiots."
AuPh
I like how NYT reviewer A.O. Scott phrases the same comment:"Within the trivial, ingratiating scope of its ambition, though, the sequel is pleasant enough."
:)
...who needs it?clark
.
Still, I could recommend it for a budget matinee. The effects are good and the Will Smith & Tommy Lee Jones banter is always good for a few laughs, but the pacing is off and the gags don't always work. Moreover, I wish that they (i.e., Screenwriter(s), etc.) hadn't borrowed the outline from the first movie and substituted that for a fully fleshed out original storyline! Oooops! I think that I just gave away the plot! ;^DAuPh
Hi,
my big complaint is that the girl from the first one didn't show up. Hard to imagine what else they could do with the film. MIB are alien cops whose job is to save da world. The concept demands a buddy team, an alien threat. This movie, like most these days, shows clearly that it was thrown together quickly, it could have used some more work. But the wonderful surprises of the first movie ('Elvis isn't dead, he just went home') were a big part of the success of the first, and just not possible here.
... and I liked the pooch and worm-guys joinin' in on the hijinks. It's just that the "McGuffin" was almost exactly the same scenario as last go round (i.e., alien visitor takes human form and tries to track down thingy that will give him/her/it supreme power within a certain time period with Earth's future hanging in the balance). Couldn't the writers have concocted some modest variation or "twist" on the original movie's theme beyond just changing the villain from a "he" to a "she" and making Will Smith's new love interest depart to the stars instead of joining the MIB team? The problem is that the first movie worked better from start to finish and established two relationships by film's end that satisfied the viewer's concerns for the characters; unfortunately, those relationships were dumped with just a perfunctory explanation in MIB-II. Good writers should've been capable of weaving the outcome of the original film into the sequel so that it would've contributed an interesting secondary element of the story.Sigh! I guess Barry Sonnenfeld didn't see enough laughs there. I'm confident that this sequel will make money, probably upwards of $200 million, but had the sequel been as satisfying as the first one it would probably make twice that. As it is, I doubt I will be picking up the DVD of MIB-II for my collection.
BTW, the high-point for me was the unexpected addition of a new cartoon (Pixar?) included before the feature; that was a hoot! :o)
Cheers,
AuPhPS: Did you notice that hip new suit Will Smith wore at the end of the first movie disappeared without explanation from the sequel? I guess that the Director figured that Tommy Lee Jones wouldn't look right in a similar outfit.
Hi,
I think we are saying the same thing, pretty much, just in a different way. If they had properly worked it, the story would have gotten a new wrinkle, the film would have been storyboarded (I think that's the right term for drawing each scene in advance). The plot
turns on J calling the Pug and filling him in. Prob is, he had personally remioved the Pug from the case, left the Pug in a situation where the Pug could not do anything, and where the potential for that information getting into the wrong hands would be obvious to a grade school kid. With the kind of money they have to play with, borrowing plot devices from Get Smart is just lame.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]