What is the last film you watched?

[A24 4,345]

The Potter films are a good example.

Bullocks. To compare something like Harry Potter with that utter turd that is Van Helsing is absolute rubbish. Surely you can see the difference in pacing, style, and quality between these films, Alex.

The paper of the packaging has a different color but the content (or essence) is the same. It's all based on the same formula. Just put on your Potter DVDs and watch out for the "events". Some folks call them "attention grabbers". They occur in each scene. But don't be surprised if you find yourself throwing your Potter DVDs out the window.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I'm sorry, now you've really lost me.

[A24 4,345]

Then forget about it and enjoy the show.

[MrScratch 294]

With Potter, it's not that every scene is injected with an "event" it's that everything else from the books as been cut out. Each book is a mystery of sorts, and in each book is a great deal of clue-gathering, tension and suspense leading up to each "event". There's also a great deal of humor and personal reflective moments and between Harry and his friends or just with Harry by himself.

Alex I agree with your MTV-generation theory but I do not think the Potter movies are a product of that. They are not the best adaptations and they aren't the best films being made today, but they are the best childrens movies to have come out in quite some time. I know so many kids that read the Potter books after seeing the first two movies came out and are now caught up to the very latest book. Anything that gets kids to read 500+ page books instead of playing video games and watching TV cannot be a product of the MTV generation but rather an antidote for it.

Jeff

[MrScratch 294]

Watched three movies over the weekend...

Return of the Jedi (1997 Special Edition), all the talk in the other thread prompted me to check it out again. I own both the original trilogy definitive CAV LD set and I also own the 1997 Special Edition CLV LD set. I was being utterly lazy. Even though I really wanted to watch the original version I didn't feel like flipping sides every 20-30 minutes. So, I watched the CLV 1997 edition so I only had to change sides twice. I never really cared about the changes to the Tatooine scenes one way or the other. The important thing is that it's Sebastian Shaw (eyebrows and all!) in this version and not Hayden. But yes, I'm still ashamed of myself...

The Importance of Being Earnest (1952), another great Oscar Wilde adaptation.

The Life of Emile Zola (1937), enjoyed it while I was watching it but on reading more about the Dreyfus affair after seeing the film was somewhat disappointed that it barely scratched the surface of the actual historical event. Still, a great performance from Paul Muni, quickly becoming one of my favorite actors of the 1930s.

Jeff

[A24 4,345]

There's also a great deal of humor and personal reflective moments and between Harry and his friends or just with Harry by himself.  

It's a pity that there's no room for that in the movies. I would be happy to see them exchange some typical "event" scenes with a few "non-event" ones.

MTV generation or not, filling each scene with an important event doesn't prolong someone's attention span.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Like many of your generation, modern cinema truly has saturated your senses.  I, Robot is made for the people of your generation.

So some people can't have an opinion of their own or have an understanding and an apprieciation for good filmmaking just because they're from a certain generation?

~Sturgis

your generation is incapable of some things when it comes to movies, like watching a sweeping scene as it builds a grows without any fast edits.

this response is typical of your generation, when trying to watch the Brian DePalma thriller Dressed to Kill and the fantastic museum sequence, most of your age reply, boring, because for 6 minutes there is not a single edit.

oh and the fact that you guys refuse to watch black and white movies. Now none of this may apply to you, but it does apply as a whole to your generation.

[MrScratch 294]

There's also a great deal of humor and personal reflective moments and between Harry and his friends or just with Harry by himself.  

It's a pity that there's no room for that in the movies. I would be happy to see them exchange some typical "event" scenes with a few "non-event" ones.

MTV generation or not, filling each scene with an important event doesn't prolong someone's attention span.

You're being far too critical. Count the "events" in Raiders or Star Wars and see how they stack up to Potter. The pacing of the beginning of the film when Harry finds his way into the wizard world and discovers his powers is very much equivalent to that of Luke meeting Ben and discovering his powers.

We are talking about a genre childrens film here, it does need to have a certain pacing to it. Should they move along at the same pace as, say, Million Dollar Baby? Nothing wrong with that film at all but that kind of filmmaking wouldn't work well for a fantasy.

I think the Potter films are guilty of having the feeling of trying to cram as much from the book as possible into them but not of catering to anyones short attention span. There is a difference.

I think most biopics have this same problem, the filmmakers cram as much events as possible from the persons life into the movie that it has this same feel. Not that they're trying to move from scene to scene, event to event, so fast it's just a balance they have to strike between telling the story and keeping the running time reasonable. Chaplin, which I recently watched, is a good example of this. It moves from event to event at much the same pace as Potter. The only difference is, the events in Chaplin aren't quite so "fantastic", but they are crammed in just the same. Attenborough and Columbus are simply both trying to do the same thing with their films, show the bigger picture. Is Chaplin and Richard Attenborough also a product of the MTV-style movie making, because it too moves from event to event?

At 2.5 hours for each Potter film, they are already pushing it, in terms of keeping kids awake for the whole movie. The running time alone is a point in their favor for giving kids the benefit of the doubt that they'll still be watching at the end of the movie. It's a fact, Alex, kids do have shorter attention spans than adults. So when making a kids movie, you have to account for that.

I don't believe the Van Helsing storyline is adapted directly from any specific source. It is, literally, injected with action and events. It was written solely to be fast moving and action packed geared for teens and older kids. This, in my mind, makes it more guilty of the MTV-style filmmaking.

But the makers of Potter had to deal with the source material, an audience that included very young kids, JK Rowling and the fanbase, which they largely stayed faithful to, albeit at the expense of some of the more personal moments in the story. Nothing was "injected" as you said, and it clearly was not at all the intent of the filmmakers to shorten anyones attention span with these movies.

Jeff

[MrScratch 294]

your generation is incapable of some things when it comes to movies, like watching a sweeping scene as it builds a grows without any fast edits.

this response is typical of your generation, when trying to watch the Brian DePalma thriller Dressed to Kill and the fantastic museum sequence, most of your age reply, boring, because for 6 minutes there is not a single edit.

oh and the fact that you guys refuse to watch black and white movies.  Now none of this may apply to you, but it does apply as a whole to your generation.

For once Joe, I'm in 100% agreement with nor could I have said it any better.

Jeff

[Justin 2]

Who?

Justin - Never heard of this person and wondering why he should care...

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

What a load of rubbish around here! I know this isn't directed at me, but I still find the overgeneralisations in these posts staggering. There's a lot of mindless popcorn-munching people out there, but believe me, there are also tons of young people who know to appreciate cinematic history and certain stylistic elements. You think a lot of young posters here belong to that category? You think the "MTV-generation" would hang out regularly at a board about a 70+-year-old? What utter bullcrap.

- Marc,

[A24 4,345]

You're right, Jeff. I'm being too critical. All that the Potter movies try to do is to entertain a young public. And a young public does have a shorter attention span.

I don't know his films by heart but I guess Chaplin needed those "events" because he made silent movies. However, I do know Star Wars and I vividly remember scenes where the "event" isn't much of an event at all. In fact, to some kids Star Wars has it "duller" moments.

I haven't seen Raiders of the Lost Ark in a long time, so I honestly wouldn't know how it fairs in the "event" department. But I know that Lucas and Spielberg made the "formula" (injecting each scene with a fantastic moment) extremely popular so I wouldn't be surprised if Raiders fits the bill perfectly. I am, however, almost a hundred percent certain that Temple of Doom is the mother of all "event" movies.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Alex you're critical of the Potter films, yet you praise the X-Men films, how interesting???

You'd be surprised to find that TOD is not the mother of all event films, as it has less moments than say LC, and even Raiders.

Marc, I know I overgeneralized, but you're point about being here on a board about a 70+ year old man is invalid, because he scores films even today, and some of his films have suffered the hyperediting that caters to the attention deficit generation, cough Lucas, cough. I also qualified my statement, I know it does not apply to everyone or you, but it does work as a blanket statement about the 20 and under group.

[A24 4,345]

Alex you're critical of the Potter films, yet you praise the X-Men films, how interesting???

You'd be surprised to find that TOD is not the mother of all event films, as it has less moments than say LC, and even Raiders.

Yes, I praise the X-Men movies. They are great popcorn movies based on comics. And guess what, some scenes have no moments and are solely there to lead to an certain event at a later stage.

In Potter the "magical moments", the "attention grabbers" are enormously apparent.

I think TOD pushed the envelope when it comes to the "rate of occurence of events" and most definitely the pacing. Raiders is a slow movie, almost a David Lean movie, in comparison.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[JoeinAR 1,949]

perhaps you need to watch TOD, you have it backwards.

[A24 4,345]

perhaps you need to watch TOD, you have it backwards.

You think so? I doubt it very much (TOD, as I remember it, is a very nervous movie) but maybe I will buy that Indiana Jones DVD box after all. I know they sell it very cheap nowadays.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[JoeinAR 1,949]

putting a pencil to it,

Raiders:

Temple/boulder/airplane escape, battle in Nepal, chase in Cairo, map room, well of souls/discovery, well of souls capture/escape, Airplane fight, desert chase, submarine capture, canyon and the ark, opening of the ark, locking the ark away. Thats 12 events more or less.

TOD:

Dance/carchase/plane escape, plane crash over India, elephant ride, the dinner, discovery of the temple of doom, black sleep of Kali, Willies near death and escape, conveyor belt, mine cars escape, rope bridge & rescue, returning the children home. Thats 11 events more or less. Its pretty close either way, both are pretty kinetic films.

someone else will have to break down LC because I don't know it as well.

[MrScratch 294]

TOD, as I remember it, is a very nervous movie)

What does that mean?? Nervous?

Raiders is a slow movie, almost a David Lean movie, in comparison.

What two movies are you comparing??

Jeff

[A24 4,345]

Raiders is a slow movie, almost a David Lean movie, in comparison.

What two movies are you comparing??

Jeff

Well, TOD and Raiders, of course.

[A24 4,345]

TOD, as I remember it, is a very nervous movie)

What does that mean?? Nervous?

Hehe, have you been drinking, Jeff?

[MrScratch 294]

Hehe, have you been drinking, Jeff?

Yes! You people out there with all of your opinions... you're driving me to the bottle!

Jeff

[A24 4,345]

putting a pencil to it,

Raiders:

Temple/boulder/airplane escape, battle in Nepal, chase in Cairo, map room, well of souls/discovery, well of souls capture/escape, Airplane fight, desert chase, submarine capture, canyon and the ark, opening of the ark, locking the ark away.  Thats 12 events more or less.

TOD:

Dance/carchase/plane escape, plane crash over India, elephant ride, the dinner, discovery of the temple of doom, black sleep of Kali, Willies near death and escape, conveyor belt, mine cars escape, rope bridge & rescue, returning the children home.  Thats 11 events more or less.  Its pretty close either way, both are pretty kinetic films.

someone else will have to break down LC because I don't know it as well.

Joe, by "events" I mean "attention grabbers". If Harry goes to the toilet a ghost appears or ... he finds something very unusual, something strange or ... the toilet runs over ... the walls seem to collapse ... well, you know something spectacular happens. If you should write them down your list of events would be pretty big.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[A24 4,345]

Hehe, have you been drinking, Jeff?

Yes! You people out there with all of your opinions... you're driving me to the bottle!

Jeff

LOL

[JoeinAR 1,949]

putting a pencil to it,

Raiders:

Temple/boulder/airplane escape, battle in Nepal, chase in Cairo, map room, well of souls/discovery, well of souls capture/escape, Airplane fight, desert chase, submarine capture, canyon and the ark, opening of the ark, locking the ark away.  Thats 12 events more or less.

TOD:

Dance/carchase/plane escape, plane crash over India, elephant ride, the dinner, discovery of the temple of doom, black sleep of Kali, Willies near death and escape, conveyor belt, mine cars escape, rope bridge & rescue, returning the children home.  Thats 11 events more or less.  Its pretty close either way, both are pretty kinetic films.

someone else will have to break down LC because I don't know it as well.

Joe, by "events" I mean "attention grabbers". If Harry goes to the toilet a ghost appears or ... he finds something very unusual, something strange or ... the toilet runs over ... the walls seem to collapse ... well, you know something spectacular happens. If you should write them down your list of events would be pretty big.

----------------

Alex Cremers

really Alex,

I think that I just did that for Raiders and TOD, which you've yet to comment on btw.

[A24 4,345]

These are all part of the basic story line. For example: Take the school's dining hall in Potter. Why couldn't they just talk with each other, without all those ghost flying above their heads, so that we get to know them as kids? Just a normal conversation between kids. Why can't they save the hocus pocus for another time? Each scene and I mean each scene holds such an "event". The element of surprise is lost that way. It's downright repetitive. If they enter a room you can rest assured that something will extraordinary happen in that room.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[JoeinAR 1,949]

really Alex, you are overstating this, there are basically the same number of event sequences in Harry Potter as there are in Lord of the Rings, the X-Men movies, the Raiders films, or the Star Wars films. The pickiness of your disdain for Potter only makes it seem out of proportions to you.

Why couldn't they just talk with each other, without all those ghost flying above their heads, so that we get to know them as kids?  

a perfect example of what I was saying, the ghosts are always present in Hogwarts, its not an event, its just the wizarding world in action, and its easy to know the kids as Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Neville are fairly well defined as who they are, along with Fred and George, Ginny, Seamus, and Draco each filling the required roles as supporting players.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I watched some of The Scorpion King on TV just now. I knew going in it was going to be bad, but I wasn't prepared for what it finally was. I was laughing out loud at a lot of things, but after a while I couldn't take it anymore, so I turned it off.

I went in expecting to watcha brain-on-the-shelf type of popcorn movie. It started good, with heavily overdone stunts, which made it a bit tongue-in-cheek (you'll have to when you cast The Rock as your main protagonist, you know), but then, a ROCK SCORE started. Let me repeat that for you: a ROCK. SCORE. With guitars and all that crap. What the hell? I watched some more, grinning at the silliness of it all, but it all just missed the mark and I couldn't take it anymore after a while. Even movie masochism has its limits.

Now let's never mention this again.

- Marc

[John McClane 1]

A rock soundtrack for a The Rock movie...

Shit apart, this movie has a good Debney's score, but obviously not at the same level of Goldsmith/Silvestri scores of the other two movies of the trilogy.

As they done with Forrest Gump, for example, they released 2 different OSTs, one with the score, and one with the songs (metal crappy useless songs). What I don't (under)stand, is what the hell metal-rock songs got to do with a Mummy film? They just don't fit in the atmosphere of the movie.

IMO, rock songs could fit in movies like Terminator, with robots or stuff like that.

Mirko - who have both Forrest Gump OSTs, but only Debney The Scorpion King's score.

[A24 4,345]

 The pickiness of your disdain for Potter only makes it seem out of proportions to you.

Why couldn't they just talk with each other, without all those ghost flying above their heads, so that we get to know them as kids?  

a perfect example of what I was saying, the ghosts are always present in Hogwarts, its not an event, its just the wizarding world in action, and its easy to know the kids as Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Neville are fairly well defined as who they are, along with Fred and George, Ginny, Seamus, and Draco each filling the required roles as supporting players.

Joe, what are you saying? The ghosts in Potter ARE the finest example of what I mean by "events". It's the ghosts that excite the attention of kids. They sit down and tataaa ... It's an event too many. In Star Wars people can have a normal conversation at the dining table (must be quite boring for the newer audiences, "What, no ghosts?"). In Alien people also can have a normal conversation about ordinary things without the obviousness that it will lead to a special effect or other spectacular attention grabbers. In Potter there's always a magic trick going on.

These days movies have a very high rate of spectacular (mostly FX-driven) events. Events are carefully timed so the average movie-goer doesn't fall asleep. Movies have to be like a theme park ride. It bothers me, and not only in the Potter movies. I guess it also depends on how well the "events" serve the story line. If they serve it well, if they have a plausible purpose, if they have enough diversity, then the event simply dissappears in the story. Yes, in some movies I take too much notice of them because there's no counterbalance, especially when each scene has the same narrative and technical layout. Especially when there's no diversity in events. Potter is such a movie.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Mola 0]

"Closer", and "The Bunker" last week - both defenetely must-see's, though not much music in them.

[Justin 2]

IMO, rock songs could fit in movies like Terminator, with robots or stuff like that.

Sorry to "pull a Morn" but... :roll:

Justin

[John McClane 1]

It surely fits more than in a Mummy film.

For example, try to compare the soundtrack of Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time and the soundtrack of Prince of Persia: Warrior Within.

What's fits better? The classical score of the first one, with oriental-style music, or the crappy metal-soundtrack of the second one?

Metal-Rock songs in adventure movies are like Ricky Martin's songs in a movie about the North Pole.

[ChrisAfonso 186]

Alex, I too think you're a bit overpicky especially by sticking to this ghost-thing. The ghosts are inhabiting Hogwarts like everyone else, so I don't see anything spectacular in having them in the background just like other people. They're part of that world.

[A24 4,345]

Alex, I too think you're a bit overpicky especially by sticking to this ghost-thing. The ghosts are inhabiting Hogwarts like everyone else, so I don't see anything spectacular in having them in the background just like other people. They're part of that world.

Mmm, the ghosts are not really the issue. You are singling out one thing and in my plea the ghosts are only but a detail. But anyhow, you don't see anything spectacular in it? For you this is not an effect anymore? I see. Damn, where are we going to?! It's only an example but I mentioned the ghosts because the dining scenes at Hogwarts were a good opportunity for not doing an "tickling" effect. However, it's beginning to dawn on me that newer generations simply want more FXs and more spectacular FXs per minute.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[MrScratch 294]

Mmm, the ghosts are not really the issue. You are singing out just one thing. In my plea, they are only but a detail. But anyhow, you don't see anything spectacular in it? For you this is not an effect anymore? I see. Damn, where are we going to?! It's only an example but I mentioned the ghosts because the dining scenes at Hogwarts were a good opportunity for not doing an "tickling" effect. However, it's beginning to dawn on me that newer generations simply want more FXs and more spectacular FXs per minute.

Alex, I think you're essentially finding fault with the Wizarding World as described by JKR, not as brought to life by the filmmakers. Because they did a pretty adequate and accurate job of bringing the books to the screen. Many of the details and "spectacular" FX of the movie, as you call them, were described by JKR is considerable detail. The ghosts at the dinner table, for instance, plays out very much like Rowling describes in the book. It is during the dinner scene where the kids meet Nearly Headless-Nick and some of the other ghosts of Hogwarts.

Her Wizard World is literally filled with all sorts of creatures and magical items. For everything in our Muggle world there is an equivalent magical item used by Wizards. It is a world that is purposefully 100% foreign to our own. Muggles are basically fish out of water in the Wizard World, just as Wizards are fish out of water in the Muggle world. It is supposed to be a magical alternate universe where, um, a kid might want to go.

If the films lacked these "details" or "spectacular events", they would be very poor adaptations of the books. I myself would have been quite disappointed. The magical world wouldn't be so magical without the floating candles, ghosts roaming the hallways, talking paintings etc etc. There is nothing wrong with having an imagination and putting it on screen.

Jeff

[ChrisAfonso 186]

But anyhow, you don't see anything spectacular in it? For you this is not an effect anymore? I see. Damn, where are we going to?! It's only an example but I mentioned the ghosts because the dining scenes at Hogwarts were a good opportunity for not doing an "tickling" effect. However, it's beginning to dawn on me that newer generations simply want more FXs and more spectacular FXs per minute.  

----------------

Alex Cremers

Perhaps it's you who sees too much "spectacular" in it Perhaps it's a combination of both - You're probably right that the "modern generation" is used to much more effects being there all the time, but they're not meant to be spectacular all the time. It's like people watching the first color movies and you, being used to b&w, constantly exclaiming "the whole film is full of colors, that are there to attract the audiences attention and adding nothing to the storyline!", when really it's just a progression in filmmaking means. On the other hand, almost the whole of the first HP, at least the first half of that book/film, is expressively about the wonderments of the magical world and how Harry reacts to it (and therefore, the audience). And surely there are quite some attention grabbers. But I think you're exaggerating it a bit. As I said, probably much stuff that todays younger audiences see as normal film ingredients appears unusal and therefore sticking out to you.

-Chris

[A24 4,345]

I understand that, Jeff, but you also said that there's also more room in the books for the non-spectacular. Maybe the books are better balanced, with enough non-spectacular counterweights, creating intervals long enough to spread the "fantastic" moments in the story.

[A24 4,345]

Perhaps it's you who sees too much "spectacular" in it  Perhaps it's a combination of both - You're probably right that the "modern generation" is used to much more effects being there all the time, but they're not meant to be spectacular all the time. It's like people watching the first color movies and you, being used to b&w, constantly exclaiming "the whole film is full of colors, that are there to attract the audiences attention and adding nothing to the storyline!", when really it's just a progression in filmmaking means. On the other hand, almost the whole of the first HP, at least the first half of that book/film, is expressively about the wonderments of the magical world and how Harry reacts to it (and therefore, the audience). And surely there are quite some attention grabbers. But I think you're exaggerating it a bit. As I said, probably much stuff that todays younger audiences see as normal film ingredients appears unusal and therefore sticking out to you.

It sticks out because the "events" in Potter are all of the same kind. The narrative film language used in the Potter films is not very complex and is based on special effects which show things of magic. Emotionally and intellectually the films have very little to offer. Each scene leads to an effect. It leaves nothing to the imagination.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[ChrisAfonso 186]

So which effect does the "Mirror of Erised" scene lead to?

[MrScratch 294]

I understand that, Jeff, but you also said that there's also more room in the books for the non-spectacular. Maybe the books are better balanced, with enough non-spectacular counterweights, creating intervals long enough to spread the "fantastic" moments in the story.

But as anyone who's ever read a book that's been translated into movie knows, the first things to go are subplots, dialogue, monologues and some character development that do not directly move the story along. As any director or writer will tell you, it's never easy but it is a must. As it is, I think Kloves (the screewriter for the Potter movies) did a great job of retaining as much of that as he could, at least for the first two.

The Harry Potter universe revolves around the Wizard World, if you don't establish it you are doing a disservice to the story. More and more is learned about how Wizards and Witches do things in each book. But it in that first book, as Chris said, the audience as well as Harry is supposed to be overwhelmed and dazzled by the magical world. How can the audience (or Harry) be dazzled if we don't see that much?

Have you ever read any of the books? I'm presuming not... I highly recommend that you read them, and with an open mind. The only reason I started reading the first one is because I found out Williams was going to be scoring the first one. After the first couple chapters, I was hooked. Do it, it's a quick read, it only took me two days to get through the first one.

Jeff

[A24 4,345]

So which effect does the "Mirror of Erised" scene lead to?

I really don't know. Are you trying to find a scene that has no effects? Suppose you succeed, ChrisAfonso, does that mean that every scene leads to no special effect? Of course not, it means that you succeeded in finding one scene that contains no effect. Congratulations, one scene against a thousand!

----------------

Alex Cremers

[A24 4,345]

Have you ever read any of the books?  I'm presuming not...  I highly recommend that you read them, and with an open mind.  The only reason I started reading the first one is because I found out Williams was going to be scoring the first one.  After the first couple chapters, I was hooked.  Do it, it's a quick read, it only took me two days to get through the first one.

I have not read the books. I'm sure I would prefer them.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

HP sequences without effects, Harry lying in the hospital bed talking to Dumbledore, Harry talking to Sirious about his mother and father, Hermione asking Prof. McGonagal about the chamber of secrets. The discovery of Mrs. Norris and finding the note about the chamber of secrets is now open. The trio in the library talking about the polyjuice potion. There are more, but considering this is a magical world its often hard to find sequences where there is no magic going on.

btw Chris and Maestro, guys you were well stated, brilliant actually.

[ChrisAfonso 186]

Each scene leads to an effect.

So which effect does the "Mirror of Erised" scene lead to?

[A24 4,345]

[

But as anyone who's ever read a book that's been translated into movie knows, the first things to go are subplots, dialogue, monologues and some character development that do not directly move the story along.  As any director or writer will tell you, it's never easy but it is a must.  As it is, I think Kloves (the screewriter for the Potter movies) did a great job of retaining as much of that as he could, at least for the first two.

It's sad that those things have to go. I watched the deleted scenes from M. Nights' Unbreakable. He was right to cut them, but there was one deleted scene which to me was very important to the story and I always felt is was somehow missing. It's a scene that would've solved the absence of information about the emotional condition of the main character played by Bruce Willis. Bruce was the sole survivor of a tragic accident and yet, he walks through life without a worry in the world, concentrating mainly on his superpowers. With the exclusion of the shower scene, there is not one indication, not a slightest hint, that Bruce needs to overcome a severe trauma. The 'breakdown in the shower' scene was a perhaps a too clear and obvious sign that Bruce was still healing from an emotional shock and I would've settled with something less explicit, but nevertheless, it contributed to some valuable and logical character development which is after all perhaps the most important element of all elements.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[A24 4,345]

There are more, but considering this is a magical world its often hard to find sequences where there is no magic going on.

I don't see why.

[A24 4,345]

Each scene leads to an effect.

So which effect does the "Mirror of Erised" scene lead to?

Yes, Joe is right, brilliant indeed. :roll:

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I just started Band of Brothers for the 8th time or something. I just watched the first episode. The planes taking off at the end is probably my favorite sequence of the entire series. The editing is superb and Michael Kamen's score fits like a glove.

[QMM 4]

Bought some movies a few months ago (Jaws was one of them) but never reviewed them

A Beautiful Mind

I liked it, inspired me enough to buy the book which I'm reading now. I really wanted to see it for Paul Bettany and wasn't disappointed. Probably the biggest suprise for me was Horner's score which sounded very very Elfman-esque.

I Heat Huckabees

You can't review a movie like this since everybody will interpret it differently. I liked it but this is probably going to be a love it or hate it thing.

Max-Hoping the ranting on Harry Potter will end soon in this thread

[MrScratch 294]

The Thing (1982). Third time I've seen it. My wife loves it, I always get a little bored about halfway through. Still, great makeup and gore.

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. Hugely disappointing, I was really hoping to see some good jabs at the news industry but the movie was too infantile. The newsmen were too stupid, this was your basic Will Ferrell comedy set amongst a news room. I like Will Ferrell comedies, I was just hoping for something a little more with such a great premise. Will Ferrell would make a great idiotic and pompous news caster, instead he ended up playing... Will Ferrell again. And Steve Carell was completely wasted in this role. There were some good laughs though, the jazz-flute bit was great.

Jeff