June 18, 2004, 6:10 a.m. CST
You got to party with the greats, good for you. Too bad the movie wasn't as good, the trailers didn't get me excited for it so I'm probably going to skip it this weekend.
June 18, 2004, 6:13 a.m. CST
June 18, 2004, 6:22 a.m. CST
thought it was gonna be good...how wrong?
June 18, 2004, 7:14 a.m. CST
You would've gotten a free meal outta me!
June 18, 2004, 7:32 a.m. CST
by Evil Chicken
The above article had me giggling a couple of times. Speaking as a married guy, I'm glad you didn't get hit over the head for wearing the BNAT
June 18, 2004, 7:41 a.m. CST
by Sgt. Black
kidding. I'm just jealous. No details about the Pac. Theater follow up for BoB?
June 18, 2004, 8:06 a.m. CST
And I mean a function, not a description. One to watch at home, where you can save yourself from snoring with some caffeine-spiked drinks, definitely... if anywhere.
June 18, 2004, 8:07 a.m. CST
I tend to trust Ebert the most. Well, more than any other major critic. The worst is Peter Travers. Him and his three sentence reviews. ON a side note, anyone ever notice that Travers will often just cite scenes from the trailers? Almost implying that he never actually saw the film. Just my 3 and a half cents.
June 18, 2004, 8:36 a.m. CST
by Punisher Fan
Um guys I do believe Drew was referring to Eberts weight loss...or Siskels, I KNOW that dude has lost some poundage..
June 18, 2004, 8:43 a.m. CST
. . . if I were doing great fighting a weight problem, in what sounds like a great relationship, both while realizing my childhood dream of working in Hollywood. Especially if it was a known fact that a huge number of anonymous strangers were actually interested in what I had to say about things. As it stands, I don't have a weight problem, nor have I realized my childhood dreams, but I AM in a great relationship. That's probably part of what prevents me from being the type of loser that freaks out with hatred towards internet movie columnists.
June 18, 2004, 10:44 a.m. CST
And you didn't take any pictures? What kind of reporter are you, anyway? sk
June 18, 2004, 11:18 a.m. CST
by Spike Fett
June 18, 2004, 11:27 a.m. CST
Williams: (rolls eyes, thinks "Dork.")
June 18, 2004, 11:34 a.m. CST
by Wet Soul
...talk about painful exposition.
June 18, 2004, 12:38 p.m. CST
Meow......WAHPISHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! (haha! I am married btw and I totally understand).
June 18, 2004, 12:40 p.m. CST
Sooooooo much envy in these talkbackers' posts. Don't you losers have an ounce of dignity or self-respect? So many bitter, green faces. It's like a Thark convention in here.
June 18, 2004, 12:52 p.m. CST
by Fish Tank
Personally, I liked your story. Made me feel like I was there. I like that you were selling the experience as well as the review. F the others.
June 18, 2004, 1:09 p.m. CST
Sooo, your post: "...just because you brought up the issue, I have a wife of seven years, a well paid job, one 11 month old child, no debt and every personal posession I could ever wish for. I've travelled a lot and have a great family who I have a lot of love and respect for.", indicates that you're less of a "self-congratulating cunt" than you accuse Mori of being in exactly WHAT way? Kindly do your species a favor and don't produce anymore offspring. You know what I mean: castration, vasectomy, sex change operation, suicide? You get the picture
June 18, 2004, 1:15 p.m. CST
If this had been presented as a striaght review and then we later found out that it was based on a premier screening, where mr and mrs moriarty, from the Jason X DVD, were surrounded by the fella from Bachelor Party and so on, we'd of been suspect. I'm not sure if this tells us anything particularly worthwhile about Mori's thoughts on the film, since he makes it quite clear that the situation was rather overwhelming. Like when Harry did two reviews of Godzilla back in the day, the day being the day that Godzilla came out, with the first one being a highly positive number based on a fantastic screening of some sort, and the other just a regular normal-guy-in-cinema reaction. We can't expect to relate terribly much to someones opinion of a spielberg film when spielberg has been yacking to them before and after, which is not to say that the review is biased, i dont mean that, man, but i'm sure Mori would agree that his opinion of the film might have been different (positive, negative, who knows?) had those really been tickets to the press-screening he was expecting. Thanks folks. Duke De Mondo. www.mondoirlando.com
June 18, 2004, 1:31 p.m. CST
My new ID works. Farewell, EdWood4321, but The Duke needs to shove you aside is what. Sorry, pseudonym, i loved you is the honest to motherfuck truth of it all.
June 18, 2004, 1:35 p.m. CST
by Pontsing Barset
Which is more irritating? Fawning fanboys? Or pretentious self appointed "celebrity" experts such as yourself? I know who *I'd* rather hang out with; and "Gay" isn't part of their User ID. *** All you cats bitching out Moriarity on this TB sound like a bunch jealous low self esteem asswipes.
June 18, 2004, 1:52 p.m. CST
by Pontsing Barset
What I said was that I'd rather hang out with a "fawning fanboy" like Mori, than some pretentious asswipe like you. I didn't say anything about having a problem with Gays. Christ, YOU picked the user ID. Do you have trouble finding shirts that fit over that huge chip on your shoulder? Pay attention next time!
June 18, 2004, 2:05 p.m. CST
by Pontsing Barset
My problem with you isn't that you're gay, if you are. One more attempt: I'd rather hang out with a fawning movie geek, gay or otherwise, than a prententious asswipe, gay or otherwise. Guess which shoe fits you GMG.
June 18, 2004, 2:15 p.m. CST
good interview. I like Spielberg, I like Hanks, but the look and sound of the flick really doesn't catch me. Maybe wait for video or even cable.
June 18, 2004, 5:25 p.m. CST
by attention whore
I would just like to say that moriarty rulez!
June 18, 2004, 7:01 p.m. CST
If anyone else had made this it would be dismissed as easily as any romatic comedy.
June 18, 2004, 11:01 p.m. CST
Besides I'll watch any movie from the Spielberg-Kaminsky duo ,no matter how much the story might suck the visuals are my fav bar none.
June 19, 2004, 10:44 a.m. CST
I was dumbfounded as I watched this movie. (And I'm a HUGE Spielberg fan). Logic is totally thrown out of the window throughout the movie. I know it was based on a true story but the only similarity to the real story is that a man was stuck in an airport due to a military coup in his home country. (I believe he was stuck for, at the most, 2 months as opposed to Hanks' 9+ months in the movie). Beyond that this story takes place in a fairy-tale land airport that is supposed to be JFK but is inhabited by more 2-dimensional characters than a paper doll convention. (Bad movies deserve bad metaphores). I'm convinced Spielberg and the screenwriters have never interacted with airport employees. I'm convinced Tom Hanks was channeling "Balki" from "Perfect Strangers". I'm convinced that if Stanley Tucci's character had a moustache, he would've been twisting the ends as he bellowed evil laughter. Finally, and sadly, I'm convinced Speilberg has gone on autopilot for this pathethic piece of tripe.
June 19, 2004, 12:07 p.m. CST
June 19, 2004, 1:23 p.m. CST
That's pretty funny...or gay.
June 19, 2004, 10:36 p.m. CST
I just couldn't take the endless inconsistencies (now Hanks understands English, now he doesn't), contradictions (now Tucci's a nice guy, now he isn't; now Hanks follows the rules, now he doesn't), implausibilities (leaning English in about a month; the concourse that's forever under construction), "quirky" minority characters (insane Hindu janitor; lovesick Hispanic porter) and outright impossibilities (in what universe would CZJ give a goofy, penniless immigrant the time of day?). I know I'm being too hard on this, but Spielberg has his choice of any script and any star--the studio even built the largest set to date for him! This would've been better as a low-budget independent film, shot at a shopping mall (doubling as an airport) by someone with an unsentimental eye for America as it is today. Can't believe Spielberg passed up MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA for this. I bet he actually thought it would be another FORREST GUMP (a simple man overcomes adversity with sheer goodness). Rant over.
June 20, 2004, 12:57 a.m. CST
HAhahahahahahahaahah.... The studio thought they could sell this shit because of the Spielberg and Hanks names but they were wrong. Hahah...it still may do well overseas, but I hope not. But it is flopping here.
June 20, 2004, 1:34 a.m. CST
This movie looks like such a major yawn. Never a big Spielberg fan, never a Hanks fan. Put 'em together with a bland script and wild horses couldn't drag me into the theater, Catherine Zeta-Jones or no Catherine Zeta-Jones. In any case, I am one AICN reader who really enjoys the longer, tangential reviews... the meal before the movie, the mood of the reviewer's companions, etc... I know a lot of people bitch about "extraneous" stuff but those kinds of reviews are what I started coming to AICN for lo these many years ago.
June 20, 2004, 1:39 a.m. CST
June 20, 2004, 9:35 a.m. CST
(1) I love dresses that show the whole concha!; (2) That guy who made the documentary about guns is not a "big guy", he's a fat fuck - even if you agree with his political view; (3) "Good evening, maestro"; are you serious? That is fetid ass-kissing. But that's what Hollywood is all about. In the words of the great Chuck D, burn Hollywoood burn, I smell a riot going on!
June 20, 2004, 7:20 p.m. CST
by Judge Briggs
First off, Zeta-Jones is extremely annoying. She is next to J.Lo on the annoying scale. Secondly, when will Hollywood wise up and hire actors who have natural accents for roles that call for them? For example, this movie and "K-19: The Widow Maker"... and so many more have sucked because of the phony accents. Damnit, Riddick was a dope movie... I want a sequel!
June 20, 2004, 7:28 p.m. CST
by Judge Briggs
... cited Steven Spielberg's movies as ..."director of such movies as "Always" and "1941." South Park is the best cartoon being made today.
June 21, 2004, 9:30 a.m. CST
when you reach puberty maybe you'll be mature enough to have an opinion...until then, get fucked
June 21, 2004, 6:49 p.m. CST
What the hell was Spielberg thinking when he picked this?? And to piss away 110 million on a sappy romantic comedy...sheesh, hope this gives him the reality check he seems to so desperately need.
Aug. 26, 2004, 2:53 p.m. CST
by Dan James
Yes the others examples aren't words but "ironical" is, and is defined as "characterized by or constituting irony" If you're gonna correct grammar, check you're right first. However, where are you correcting them from? I didn't see them in the article or the talkback :S
June 25, 2005, 11:21 p.m. CST
Just saw this on HBO today and it was actually OK. Sure some of this had to do with the fact that I was sitting watching it at 11 AM and did not may $11 to see it, but I still enjoyed it quite a bit. Hanks was good. The movie was funny and oddly poignant and made many bigger points than initial reviewers realized. The one thing wrong about it was the overdone set design (completely wrong for this small story) and also the casting - generally bad. But Hanks and Tucci were great. Others seemed to revel to much in their own characters and not enjoy them. The screenplay was actaully OK and in the hand of someone else or even if Spielberg had toned down the set and not been so heavy-handed at times it could have been fantastic.
June 25, 2005, 11:40 p.m. CST
Meant to say "did not pay $11" and "seemed to revel too much."