Vic Sage

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0PDoKtO6B9Q8k8AatmJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBlMTQ4cGxyBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1n?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Ddollhouse%2Bdushku%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dmy-myy%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D218&w=1024&h=768&imgurl=www.moviewallpaper.net%2Fwpp%2FEliza_Dushku_in_Dollhouse_Wallpaper_4_800.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moviewallpaper.net%2Fw%2FEliza_Dushku_in_Dollhouse_Wallpaper_4_800.html&size=137+KB&name=Wallpaper+Download+Page+-+Eliza+Dushku+in+Dollhouse+Wallpaper+4&p=dollhouse+dushku&oid=17b621592d977e9cd522d634598ab38e&fr2=&fr=my-myy&tt=Wallpaper%2BDownload%2BPage%2B-%2BEliza%2BDushku%2Bin%2BDollhouse%2BWallpaper%2B4&b=211&ni=220&no=218&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=12evcnm0k&sigb=135qevoqj&sigi=128q9sk15&.crumb=pgopg1FfLYG

So, there i was, reading a compendium of essays about the various works of Joss Whedon, and i came face-to-face with the chapter on DOLLHOUSE... the hole in my own personal Whedonverse. Oh, sure, i own the FIREFLY series and SERENITY dvd, having watched them both with and without "commentary", and the spin-off comics derived from it; I've also got the soundtrack to the musical BUFFY episode ("once more, with feeling") in regular rotation on my iphone, and i've even watched all of ANGEL (for which i deserve a medal). And i've shown DR. HORRIBLE to my son, who enjoyed it with me. But DOLLHOUSE? nada, nyet, bupkis, nothing. When it first aired on FOX, the promos made it look like a cheesy show about programmed prostitutes. When i realized Whedon had created it, and for FOX yet! (the network that totally fucked up the broadcast of FIREFLY), it seemed like Joss had sold out for commercial success, giving Satan's network the kind of high concept sex thriller it craved. So i avoided it the first time around. But here i was, book in hand, reading these interesting essays about the show... declaring it to have the same kind of intelligence and craft as all his other work, with many similar tropes... individual stories that develop a large-scale apocalyptic mythology, focused on an increasingly empowered female superhero defending humanity against malicious (often corporate) powers-that-be. What the hell? That's what live-streaming on Netflix is for. So i watched the series, start to finish. There are only 2 seasons worth so it wasn't very time consuming. It was hard slogging at first. The first 5 episodes are one-offs in which Echo (Elisha Dushku) is one of a houseful of "dolls", aka "actives" (people who have volunteered for various reasons to have their memories wiped and get implanted with new ones for specific "engagements" for a 5-year term, after which they get their original memories back and a big payout). Echo is given a personality/memory, and hired to do a specific job, and a rogue FBI agent, determined to discover if the Dollhouse really exists, seeks to find her and save her, and the other "dolls", who he reasonably views as high-priced sex slaves (which they often but not exclusively are). But starting around episode 6, MAN ON THE STREET, Whedon starts developing the back story and supporting characters, and starts crafting a serious Whedonverse for his characters to inhabit. The series starts to become about self-determination, and identity, and about victimization by corporate culture that wants to keep us compliant consumers. Season 1 ends with "Epitaph", which jumps ahead 10 years to a frightening dystopian future, where the mind control technology has caused civil war and social breakdown. I guess whedon thought they'd be cancelled and wanted to firmly anchor his mythology and wrap things up in a way he couldn't with FIREFLY, until he made SERENITY. But the show got a reprieve and, Epitaph went unaired in the US, and season 2 picked up where season 1 left off, showing how things go terribly awry and how Echo and her collaborators (there is always a "scooby gang" supporting the hero in a Whedon show) try to save the world. No more police procedural/1-off "engagement" episodes; its all myth making in season 2, until if finally gets cancelled, but not before airing "Epitaph 2", which wraps things up in that future dystopia, giving Whedon the chance to present a satisfying finale for the series in a way he'd only done for BUFFY. I don't want to get into the details of episodes, or present any "spoilers" (i don't think i have; i hope not). I just wanted to note that for those who overlooked this series originally, it's well worth the effort, if you can get thru the first 5 episodes or so. And for those Browncoats out there who were put off originally by the sleazy and apparently sexist and exploitive material (as i was), rest assured its none of those things... it resides in a valued corner of the Whedonverse and shouldn't be overlooked.

A stylish but overrated bore. It takes the plot of A STAR IS BORN, adds a cute dog and cuts out dialogue. And the dog was the best actor in it. If the lead actor was actually a brilliant physical comedian, this movie would make sense. But he's just your standard French charmer, a Gaullic Gene Kelley type. But the only reason to make a silent film is to do what they did best... COMEDY. Silent comedies transcended language (and, therefore, sound) and formed the basis of American humor for decades after the silent era ended, affecting animation, vaudeville, tv and much of what followed. The kind of romantic melodramas of the silent era that this is movie pays homage to are often best forgotten, and are certainly not unique to silent films. There is some humor here, of course, and some song-and-dance moments, too, but at its core its romantic melodrama, and its one we've seen MANY times before. The only twist here is to make it a silent film about the silent film era, but that clever conceit doesn't wear well over 2 hours. Plus the dog. the dog is cute. That being said, its made about as well as one could expect, given the limitations of the subject. I voted wrong... meant to give it **1/2

we went thru an exercise here where we listed our top 10s, but i opined that such a thing fluctuated daily for me, so i kept posting a different top 10 every day for like a week. viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4124

one man's meat is another man's boring piece of shit. but really i have not seen the Ozu film and make no comment on it; i was bored by another one of his films, and the subject matter of this one doesn't entice me in the least. and "boring" can also be a matter of context. When i first saw "2001", i think it was a theatrical re-release when i was a teenager and it totally blew me away. It was so startlingly new and original and (seemingly) profound that it's "slowness" seemed like an essential element of its artfulness. I bought it on DVD but now the movie just bores the crap out of me. I don't know how i would feel about ERASERHEAD if i saw it again now, but i saw it often in my teens and 20s and never grew tired of its funny, perverse, sad kind of strangeness. maybe it would just bore me now, too, but that might speak more about me than the film. i don't know.

1. "Vertigo" - it's arguable, but worthwhile 2. "Citizen Kane" - always felt it was somewhat overrated, but not by much 3. "Tokyo Story" - never saw it, but i've seen other of Ozu films ("Floating Weeds" for one) and they're slow soap operas, like watching paint dry 4. "La Regle du jeu" - love love love this movie; totally one of the top 10 5. "Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans" - never saw it, but i've seen other Murnau films. This one seemed more like melodrama than his others ("Nosferatu", for example), but its supposed to have had some technical innovations and its always been on my "to see" list. 6. "2001: A Space Odyssey" - As slow as an on Ozu film, but at least it has primates at war, and a killer computer, and a trippy finale leading to a space baby. 7. "The Searchers" - one of my favorite westerns; top 10? Ok. 8. "Man with a Movie Camera" - never saw this doc, but its post-modern structure and themes would seem to have kept it from dating and i'd still like to see it 9. "The Passion of Joan of Arc" - saw "Vampyr" but not this prior Dreyer work; i'm sure the lighting and angles are gorgeous, but i've no interest. 10. "8 1/2" - Of all the great fellini films, this isn't one. Its silly, self-indulgent and has dated badly, like La Dolce Vita. "Nights of Cabiria", "Amarcord", "La Strada" are all better than this.

IMDB implies it's not even a Bourne movie though, which sorta ruins the whole story imo. Not that the story every really mattered in this franchise, but they're definitely misleading us via the trailers. i'm not sure what you mean that "its implied it's not even a Bourne move". The trailer makes no secret of the fact that it's not about Jason Bourne, and is not the least misleading that it is. The trailer depicts Jeremy Renner's character as an assassin, created by the same program that created Bourne, going on the run, and its an action/spy thriller with a romantic angle, just as the Bourne movies are, with many of the same supporting characters and actors, written by Tony Gilroy, the guy who co-wrote all the other Bourne movies, and this time directed by him, too (he directed MICHAEL CLAYTON, which i think is a good thing). Might it be a bomb anyway? Sure. But i''m willing to give it a try, based on Renner and Gilroy.

but POINT BLANK, the first adaptation, didn't use "Parker" either.

PAYBACK was based on Donald Westlake's novel "The Hunter", featuring his "Parker" character whom he used in a series of books in the 60s-70s (which he wrote as "Richard Stark"). A few of the Parker books have been turned into films, but none of them called him "Parker". I wonder why? POINT BLANK (based on "The Hunter")(1967) with Lee Marvin as "Walker" - the best of the bunch, directed by John Boorman PILLAGED (based on "The Score") (1967) with Michel Constantin as "Georges" - an obscure French adaptation THE SPLIT (based on "The Seventh") (1968) with Jim Brown as "McClain" - Jim Brown was a great football player, but as an actor... THE OUTFIT (based on "The Outfit") (1973) with Robert Duvall as "Macklin" -solid little revenge thriller, with Duvall PAYBACK (also based on "The Hunter") (1999), with Mel Gibson as "Porter" - surprisingly OK Apparently, however, there is a PARKER movie coming out Jan/13, with Jason Statham as Parker himself...Finally. Co-starring J-Lo (oy!), and directed by Taylor HACKford (2x oy!).

But Rhas Al Ghul isn't Irish. And the Russian sub commander played by Sean Connery wasn't Scottish. It's all good, if the actor is good. There was no particular reason Bane had to be any particular nationality.

Bane was played by Tom Hardy, an English actor, so he comes by the accent honestly. But I think his accent is no more nor less shocking than Liam Neeson's as Rhas Al Ghul. It's a classic Hollywood trope to have the most vicious villains speaking in a cultured, urbane, often [crossout:35zl8e63]English[/crossout:35zl8e63] European accent.

the medium is the message.

and to be a Mets fan is all about forgiving and moving on. to be a yankee fan, on the other hand, is to be unforgiving and arrogant.

a room? really? i didn't even think you were still talking to me.

well, when you put nipples on the rubber bat suits, you know there are other issues being worked out.

i thought you were describing the Nolan films, too, and i am rejecting that characterization. If you weren't, then you weren't.

A beautiful, epic, melancholy movie. Overlong perhaps, but I didn't mind. While the story stands on its own, it is primarily derived and motivated by the 2 films that precede it, so a fuller understanding and appreciation of it requires viewing of the first 2. * The film rewrites Bane into an interesting character, which is a minor miracle in and of itself. * Hathaway totally nails catwoman's "whore with a heart of gold" cliched core and makes her endearing, smart, tough, and believably amoral. * Christian Bale is the total package as bruce wayne AND Batman -- driven, maybe just this side of nuts, but a man of principle ("fetishizing violence"? please.); he's a man who puts on a suit of armor, not a suit of armor with a man inside. * Michael Caine, Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman give their usual stolid support. * It sets the scene for Robin really nicely, for any subsequent films -- a reboot could still start right there. * I didn't care for Marion Cotillard, or the plot twist she is asked to play; it felt forced and imposed on the narrative. But the big reveal did cause an audible gasp and sense of satisfaction in the story getting back to to its comic book roots, so i didn't really mind. Best of all, the central metaphor of the film, that the dark knight "rises", is a repeated motif depicted with poetic grace. *** SPOILERS *** Rising from his self-imposed retirement and disgrace, rising in the new "bat" copter, rising, after being battered and literally and metaphorically broken by Bane, from a literal hole in the Earth, inspiring the people of Gotham to rise and oppose Bane, rising in the "Bat" to fly the bomb out over the bay *** SPOILERS END *** its all done with a sad beauty that feels unexpected but inevitable, as only the best kind of storytelling can. i give it ****, putting it on par with the first 2, and making this trilogy the absolute definitive movie adaptation of this character, nobody else need apply.

the first trailer features Kevin Costner's voice over, as Jonathan Kent. the 2nd trailer features Russell Crowe's voice over, as Jor-El. the both gave me total chills. I'm gay for Zack Snyder.

i never watched the tv show, but my wife did. so she was willing to watch, and we let the kids watch, too, even knowing it was rated R and probably raunchy. There were some genuine laughs (my son especially liked the part where the bad guy gets his dick shot off), but it was pretty stupid and forgettable overall, with no real reason to recommend it.

for a 1-joke movie, the joke is pretty funny. then it just gets weird/creepy. I liked it OK.

too lazy

you answered the question yourself. Whether Americans CAN read subtitles or not, there's no doubt that they WON'T, at least not in large enough numbers to justify making a film. So once Hollywood decided to remake it, the question wasn't "what should we add to justify it".... it's "how can we make this story of rape and murder in sweden cool enough to draw a mall audience in Pasadena?" David Fincher's dark and visually compelling style was well suited for the material, and Rooney Mara and Daniel Craig were excellent. It told its complex story comprehensibly with a framing story that allows for the sequels to follow. Product placement? i didn't notice, but i'll take your word for it. But how is that different than any other Hollywood movie? If you prefer the original films, i won't argue. They're excellent. But i only thought to seek them out after seeing this one. And preferring the others doesn't necessarily make this one ungood.

they got Peter Parker completely wrong... but besides that, Mrs. Lincoln, i liked the play OK. Peter Parker isn't a brooding, alienated, disaffected teenager with cool skateboarding skills, looked on with longing by the beautiful brainy blonde Gwen Stacey. Peter Parker is a pathetic, uptight unathletic nerd who no cute girl would look at twice. That's why his transformation as Spider-Man is so intoxicating and liberating for him... and for the nerdy kids who've been reading his 4-color adventures for the last 50 years. That being said, Garfield and Stone are excellent. The Lizard isn't a very interesting villain, but the action is staged pretty well. The lack of JJJ creates a noticeable vacuum of humor and negative energy not adequately filled by Dennis Leary's CAPTAIN STACY. Martin Sheen and Sally Field aren't given much to do as Uncle Ben and Aunt May. And the inclusion of Parker's invention of the webshooters is offset by the desecration of Spidey lore inherent in inventing a backstory about his parents that screws with continuity. And rewriting the "with great power" speech (along with the details of Ben's death) is just so inexcusable. All in all, i felt there was a laudable focus on character over plot, but they got the main character wrong, so they lose the bonus points. Overall, i was entirely unaffected by the movie, and only moderately entertained. I would give it 2.5, but i only gave myself options of 2** or 3*** (stupid poll!), so i gave it 3.

Surprised to see no poll up yet. thoughts?

Resent it? No, i appreciate it when i realize how bad it might have been.