Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

THE GREEN MILE review

...and so say all of us by duffy	Dec 9th, 1999 03:31:29 AM
Well said that man in the corner
and the winner is... by Lazarus Long	Dec 9th, 1999 03:38:59 AM
congratulations harry on fulfilling your own prediction! the envelope is already sealed to some, but I think this film is a long way from winning best picture if you go to "mrqe.com", the movie review database, you can look up Green Mile and see a plethora of less than 4-star reviews. I agreee with Harry in that there is nothing wrong with manipulation. Let's face it, all FILM is manipulation. Using sound, picture, music, and words to make us feel or think something. But it is when the manipulation is SHAMELESS that it is not something to admire. The reason Mr. Spielberg is such an enemy of art is because he's not content to just rely on the obvious amazing gift of imagination that he has. He's been successful so many times, there's no need to ram things down our throats with false historical accounts (Schindler crying at the end of the film) or flag-waving patriotic tripe. Jaws is manipulative too, but in a skillful and honest way. I will rserve my judgement for the Green Mile until I see it, but folks, when Kenneth Branagh did a 4 hour version of Hamlet, he was doing it out of respect for possibly our greatest work by our greatest writer. Darabont apparently thinks he was making the Greatest Story Ever Told, and I hope when the awards are handed out in March, they are given to people who actually pushed a fucking envelope, not expected their name to be inside one. Remember that the acronym stands for Motion Picture ARTS and SCIENCES, not AMERICANA and SENTIMENTALITY.
Harry, every once in a while you're on top of your game by zinger	Dec 9th, 1999 05:23:58 AM
Harry, you can't pick up an advance national review without a critic bellyaching about the length which is so rediculous of a criteria to frame any assesment by.(EW to name one of three and you certainly didn't hear them carp about Shoa) Reminds me of Jeffery Jones' role as Emperor Joseph in AMADEUS "too many notes!" and Mozart saying I use as many notes are as required....and speaking of high notes...Harry, when you sit down, and are truly at ease at the laptop, your writing shows it. Damn, your opinion of a subject might set off a 3 alarm talk back (back sliding on Phantom, yow!) But your comparing the pace and delivery of "Mile" to the unfolding of a '30's 24 sheet is inspired imagery and (having seen Mile) accurate. But I must call you on the cold shoulder bit by WB brass....you know damn well every Home Video suit came and kissed your Iron Giant mail ordered (with two Cheerios boxtops) detachable action figure wristwatch cooing "more posts, more posts can we get you 6 more DVD's"......you know I'm right...
That Extra Mile by xtian	Dec 9th, 1999 07:38:44 AM
Can't wait to watch this one with you and skybox lady after the Butt-Numb-a-Thon. Xtian.
I have not seen The Green Mile yet (will do so tomorrow), but I by r_dimitri22	Dec 9th, 1999 08:25:09 AM
I have not seen The Green Mile yet (will do so tomorrow), but I would like to say a few things about manipulation, because I think there is a simple matter of semantics in this oft-heard criticism. I agree there is nothing inherently wrong with "manipulating" the audience. I think that is an important objective in good moviemaking -- using the storytelling to invoke fear, fascination, sadness, etc., in the viewers. However, when the audience member is consciously aware of the strings as they are being pulled, the "manipulation" is a failure. Perhaps the term should subdivided into "manipulation veiled within the construct of the story" and "obviously contrived manipulation." The problem is that everyone's threshold for manipulation awareness is different. Hence, when someone criticizes Spielberg or any other director for manipulating his audience, it is really an empty criticism in and of itself. The more apt criticism would be (and it would be a personal criticism rather than a universal one): the device of manipulation was too exposed. There are some movies that many people probably deem sappy that have emotionally affected me. There are other movies that people find touching that I think are mushy drivel. The bookends for Saving Private Ryan worked for me, but I know that they did not work for a lot of other people. On the other hand, the end sequence for Schindler's List seemed a little over the top to me. This whole issue is very subjective and personal; either it works for you or it does not. I suppose that if the manipulation in a given movie was too overt for a large majority of the audience, then the film could be deemed a failure in that it failed to reach as many people as it intended. My fear in watching The Green Mile is that I will consciously feel manipulated, and if that happens I'll be disappointed. However, if I am not conscious of the strings, I expect a great moviegoing experience.
Getting better... by Achilles	Dec 9th, 1999 08:29:52 AM
OK, Harry, you're getting better. This time around, you manage to start discussing the film about halfway into the review as opposed to in the last paragraph of a ten page review, which is usually your modus operandi.
Stoked! by Yossarian	Dec 9th, 1999 08:54:42 AM
This is gonna come off a priggish and uppity, but I was one of the 10 people in North America that saw Shawshank when it opened. I was excited to see my favorite story come to the screen. It flopped. I tried to get people to see it, to start a little word-of-mouth for this great, great little film. The theatre had other ideas. They pulled it after only a week to replace it with Pauly Shore's "In the Army". But now it has developed sort of a cult movie status, it makes me strangely proud. It's like your favorite underdog team winning the pennant or seeing your favorite local band have a top ten albumn. All I know is, I am really excited to see Darabont's new film receive so much attention and praise. -Yoss
Tom Hanks, Tom Hanks, Tom Hanks, Tom Hanks....... by E_Man	Dec 9th, 1999 08:56:47 AM
Sure, you can discuss the best film-year till the cows go home but THE actor of the 90
More on "manipulation" by The Gline	Dec 9th, 1999 09:59:56 AM
Art is manipulation. Period. If you are an artist, then you make your living by manipulating people's emotions. There is no shortcut around this. To denigrate a film as being manipulative is a cheap shot in some ways, because that is to a large degree what they are geared to do. The real issue, I think, is whether or not the manipulation was earned. "Love Story", a treacly piece of schmaltz, doesn't earn any of its manipulative moments, because they're mostly in a vacuum. The story is banal and the characters are little better than cut-outs; they have no opinions, no ideas, just emotional reactions. I'll have to see for myself if "The Green Mile" earns its due.
And on runtime... by The Gline	Dec 9th, 1999 10:09:31 AM
180 minutes, 240 minutes, 96 minutes -- they're all valid. It depends on the story. I do agree that there are diminishing returns after a certain point (I think four hours is really about the outer limit), but if you want to have the fastest three hours of your life, rent the uncut version of "The Seven Samurai". It hardly seems long enough.
manipulation shmanipulation by Batutta	Dec 9th, 1999 10:13:25 AM
If you don't like to be manipulated, don't watch movies. Better yet, stay away art altogether. Every piece of art, good or bad, is a manipulation, designed to create an emotonal or intellectual response in the viewer. Spielberg gets flak for being too manipulative, but when I hear this argument it's never about a masterpiece like E.T., about as emotionally shameless and manipulative a film as has ever been made (and I mean that in a good way), but his "flawed" films like The Color Purple, or Saving Private Ryan. The book-ends in SPR and Schindler's List are unnecessary in my view, mainly because they seem to be there ONLY to pull our heartstrings and make no contribution to the narrative, but damnit if Schindler's List didn't earn the right to that crying scene. Any one who wasn't emotionally involved in the film by that point has either a heart of stone, or is emotionally repressed. I think certain people can't, or don't want to feel anything when they go the movies, so they see any attempt at eliciting emotion as manipulative. Art, like life, would be pretty boring if it didn't make us feel something...On the subject of Shawshank, I could care less how many cliches a film is built upon if those cliches are invested with as much character and emotion as the ones of Shawshank, and I don't think the film's BUILT on those cliches anyway. The film offers so much beyond those "cliches" that your criticsim of the film for that aspect left me scratching my head. I didn't hear you carp about cliches when you went gaga over an unmitigated piece of shit like Armageddon. That film's a walking compendium of action movie cliches, rendered without a quarter of the intelligence or conviction of theme as Shawshank Redemption.
"Manipulation" and intelligence (this'll throw you for a loop) by Capt. Fantastic	Dec 9th, 1999 10:21:36 AM
Okay, here's an issue that's going to be beaten like a dead horse the rest of the day (and where the hell did that "dead horse" expression come from, anyway?). Gotta agree (somewhat) with the above poster that ALL art is a form of manipulation. My only divergence is that all EFFECTIVE art is a form of manipulation. The simple fact is, people can paint, or sculpt, or write, but if what they create doesn't affect me in some way, then I don't consider it "good". ART MAKES YOU FEEL. Film, stories, whatever. Why do you think Stephen King is one of the best-selling authors in history? It ain't because he's a Pulitzer-winning master of the English language (his critics always point that out). It's because he's a master of the HUMAN language. He tells stories. And his stories make you feel. Manipulative? Bet your ass. Marilyn Vos Savant recently printed an interesting study on chosen professions of various intelligent rankings (based on IQ scores). Know who was at the absolute top of the IQ-profession list? Not doctors. Not scientists. Not lawyers (thank God). It's writers. And there's a reason. GOOD writers know how to shape a story and to make you feel (they're manipulating you), and you love them for it. And when you get a director who can translate that manipulation onto the big screen (Spielberg or Darabont or Capra), well, that's just a little piece of heaven. Cap out...
suits by Batutta	Dec 9th, 1999 10:22:29 AM
Harry's comment about the suits reaction to the film didn't surprise me in the least. These guys could care less if the film's great or not. They wouldn't know what a great movie was if it bit them on the ass. By saying Green Mile would be great only if it were shorter, what they really were saying was, "The movie would make more money if it were shorter." To these phone monkeys, the only measure of a film's greatness is it's box-office. If you asked any of these jag-offs, they would have rather produced Pokemon than The Insider.
Manipulation & Darabont by mrbeaks	Dec 9th, 1999 10:44:31 AM
I think Lazarus was correct in saying that manipulation falls into either the "shameless," or "honest" category (I often substitute "earned" for the latter.) I think JAWS was one of the greatest feats of "honest" manipulation since NORTH BY NORTHWEST, but it's amazing how Spielberg could then turn around and offer up some of the most shameless manipulation ever commited to celluloid with THE COLOR PURPLE and ALWAYS, which I believe is his career nadir. Onto THE GREEN MILE and Darabont..... as Harry noted, SHAWSHANK was greeted with general indifference by the critics (I don't recall any genuine raves,) with most feeling that it was simply too long. Well, I still haven't a clue as to where it should be cut. And now these geniuses are chiming in with similar thoughts on THE GREEN MILE? Just more evidence of the ol' pack mentality that dictates modern day film criticism. As for the WB Brass, or whatever suits Harry spoke to..... all they're thinking about is how to get more showings per day. They'd love every film to be a ninety-minute hit of adrenaline that'll do repeat business. Their opinions, when it comes to quality, are largely irrelevant.
"I don't think so." by r_dimitri22	Dec 9th, 1999 10:54:21 AM
I haven't seen Eyes wide Shut (still holding to my principles and waiting for the director's cut), but for now I will always associate that quote with Christopher Lambert and Mortal Kombat. :-)
Grammer, people, grammar!! by Acappellaman	Dec 9th, 1999 11:06:48 AM
It's "COULDN'T care less", people, not "COULD care less". If you COULD care less, that means you CARED. Get your cliches right, folks. And yes, it's "YOUR" cliches, not "YOU'RE" cliches. I hate that too ("TOO", not "TO"). It drives me up a friggin tree to see these words and phrases used incorrectly. I learned this crap when I was in flippin JR. HIGH, so seeing grown adults screwing them up just makes me sad. By the way, I'm really looking forward to seeing The Green Mile. I agree that this was one of King's better creations in recent years - not as predictable as most of his books written in the '90s. I've got high hopes for this flick. Unfortunately, I have yet to see American Beauty, so I'll have to hold off on my vote for best movie of the year. The Iron Giant and Toy Story II both kicked major butt. I'm hoping featured animations continue this trend of using fewer corny musical numbers in the movies. That's one thing I loved about The Iron Giant (lack of stupid songs), and Toy Story II only had the one song by Jessie, but that one worked pretty well. As far as this whole manipulation in film thing goes, all I can say is that if it works and I don't actually FEEL manipulated, I just couldn't care less. :)
Acappellaman by r_dimitri22	Dec 9th, 1999 11:20:09 AM
Is the misspelling in your subject heading: a) a mistake, b) a humorous stab at your own spelling abilities in order to lessen the harshness of your criticism, or c) some cryptic allusion to the star of Frasier? Seriously, those sorts of grammar quibbles bother me as well, but the error is not always a product of ignorance. Sometimes its (ha ha) just a result of brain to keyboard malfunction. I would have never thought that I would accidentally put "your" in the place of "you're," but I have done it before. It was not that I was confused as to which to use. It was because my aging brain processed the sound without the context as I typed. Not everyone has time to proofread these talkback posts. Harry's mistakes...those are a different story. Since he is posting these as articles for everyone to read, he could make a better proofreading effort every now and then.
Sick of Tom Hanks! by cady	Dec 9th, 1999 11:23:06 AM
Tom Hanks has got to be the most overrated actor of his generation. He has two expressions: nice and constipated. And three hours of nice would give anyone constipation. He makes Oscar-worthy movies, that's for sure, but Oscar-worthiness has little to do with quality. All it means is that it's long, it's well-intentioned, it hits you over the head with important message and/or it's British. If the trailer for THE GREEN MILE is any indication, you're in for 3 hours of Oscar-mongering.
My previous header by Acappellaman	Dec 9th, 1999 11:23:40 AM
It was intentional, of course... why would I spell it correctly AND incorrectly in the header if it wasn't done on purpose? Silly people...
On Manipulation by Peregrin	Dec 9th, 1999 11:30:08 AM
Of course art is manipulation, but I agree that their are certain types of manipulation that can either be classified as good or bad. Kubrick was the absolute master of manipulation; in both "Lolita" and "A Clockwork Orange" he created characters [The Professor and ALex] that frightened you in the beginning, that you began to hate, that you wanted to see get exactly what they deserved, but then when the time came...absolute complete and total turn around. You felt for these people like you couldn't have even imagined during the first half of the film. As far as I'm concerned that [and other Kubrick films] are the absolute pinnacle of cinematic manipulation. My main objection to the manipulation utilized by under-skilled directors such as Spielberg is that the manipulation is usually the product of something that exists completely and totally outside of the film, through no effort of his own. My question to you is not whether Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan are powerful at parts, but how, no matter who made them, could they not be? You have one of the most cataclysmic events in human history happening within the lifetimes of many people still on this Earth! Christ, just raw documentary footage of the holocaust and D-Day are powerful. Spielberg's power is completely and totally artificial; he supports the status quo and he plays to it like a pandering, beggin dog! They claim 11 million people died in Germany just over 50 years ago, of course making a film about it is going to cause some type of reaction...
Tom Hanks!!! by Acappellaman	Dec 9th, 1999 11:32:37 AM
Cady, Cady, Cady... Tom Hanks is without a doubt one of the best actors alive. Contrary to your post, he has far more than two expressions, although the two you mentioned he's pretty fantastic at. Take a close look at him during almost any of his performances (Try and keep it in this decade, though - I don't think he wants to be critiqued based on his role in Bosom Buddies). He's on helluva fine actor, not overrated in the least. Please reconsider before bashing one of Hollywood's greatest...
Warrior in Hell! by Acappellaman	Dec 9th, 1999 11:37:36 AM
Friggin (or friggin') has no rule because it's a made-up word anyway. Nyah. Have fun in Hell - I'll send you a postcard from the friendly skies...
My apologies, Acappellaman! by cady	Dec 9th, 1999 11:57:03 AM
Tom Hanks did add a third mode of expression to his repertoire in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN: a shaky hand. Looks like he uses it again in THE GREEN MILE. He does have a knack for using each expression to full Oscar effect, though. He's an ok actor, but certainly not deserving of all the accolades he's been getting. Let's agree to disagree on this one. Tom Hanks is not my kind of actor and THE GREEN MILE is not my kind of movie.
GREEN MILE...how will it rank? by Kikstad	Dec 9th, 1999 11:59:18 AM
If the movie adaptation is as awesome as Stephen King's original book series, then it certainly will be the movie of the year. Can't wait to see it! -- Nick
Fight Club not American Beauty by mitsurugi777	Dec 9th, 1999 12:08:24 PM
is the best movie so far this year. Eyes Wide Shut and Bringing Out the Dead were okay. I'm looking forward to the Green Mile and Anna and the King.
Spielberg "under-skilled?" by mrbeaks	Dec 9th, 1999 12:12:02 PM
Sounds like a manipulation of the truth. JAWS and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK are two of the most perfect films ever made. The man is a master of the craft, even if he's unfortunately lost his faith in the general public to fully understand his work without pandering (e.g. the last half-hour of SCHINDLER'S LIST and the bookending device that hamstrung SPR.)
Spielberg made Schindler's and SPR what they were. by Portnoy	Dec 9th, 1999 12:15:20 PM
Peregrin is once again proving himself an idiot. Anyone who tries to say the movie was good but the director sucks obviously doesn't know the first thing about directing. Directors make movies. This is why the Best Director and Best Picture often go to the same movie. It is such bullshit to say 'I hate this guy and all the good movies he's done would have been good without him'. A lot of those movies would not have been MADE without him. Spielberg gets a lot of criics because he is a Hollywood director and not a 23 year old independant with a shitty script and shittier actors. Good art is manipulation. If you don't like that a movie made you feel a certain way then YOU DON'T LIKE MOVIES. Spielberg is one of the greatest directors of all time. There aren't a lot of directors with movies like ET, Close Encounters, Schindler's List, Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, and The Indy Trilogy under their belts. And as for historiclly inaccurate information in movies, Why the hell are you doing trying to get your history from a movie. Movies are for entertainment. If you want history, read a damn book. I've never seen a movie that said 'The following movie is exactly what happened word for word.' Movies are not history, THEY ARE MOVIES. When I sit down and watch a great movie, I don't think 'Yes, but was that how it happened?' Or 'Well, I bet any director could have done that movie.' These are stupid comments. Just like 'I'm crying at the end of the movie, I must have been manipulated because I never cry!' Get real. Being manipulated in a movie is a GOOD thing. If a movie doesn't emotionally grab you, how good can it really be?
Best So Far by Mini Ebert	Dec 9th, 1999 12:38:27 PM
This year has been a good one for film. if a list was to come out i would have a few entries Election,South Park (Yes, one of the best musicals in decades),Go,American Beauty,ExistenZ(Highly under-rated).
More Hanks rant! by cady	Dec 9th, 1999 12:38:31 PM
FORREST GUMP glamorized ignorance. PHILADELPHIA was a gay movie for homophobes. SAVING PRIVATE RYAN could've been the best war movie ever made if it had ended after the first thirty minutes. The rest of the movie was a hodgepodge of characters and situations from other war movies. I actually enjoy Hanks more in less serious fare like SPLASH or SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE where his limited range is not too distracting and annoying.
RE: AgentCole by mrbeaks	Dec 9th, 1999 12:56:58 PM
Hitchcock made FAMILY PLOT and TORN CURTAIN. Capra made POCKETFUL OF MIRACLES. Wilder was responsible for BUDDY BUDDY and SABRINA (sorry, but I find it painful.) I could go on. Point being..... everyone has misfires. Kubrick, save for his earliest work, can be excepted (though some may loathe BARRY LYNDON and EYES WIDE SHUT,) but he was nowhere near as prolific as the men above.
GREEN MILE by emailman	Dec 9th, 1999 01:12:35 PM
Enjoyed reading your review of GREEN MILE. Was wondering one thing. How can anyone talk about prison movies without mentioning BRUTE FORCE?
The Green Bile... by GEEKBASHER 3.0	Dec 9th, 1999 01:12:49 PM
I've seen this pile of horseshit and it was a okay movie but very manipulative and too syrupy, too long and too slow. Our Critic in San Diego gave it one star, saying it goes nowhere slowly. It won't win Best Picture, I predict. Duece Bigalow will rule the box office this weekend! Hey at least that movie admitted to being dumb and stupid but a fun entertaining time! I am sick of Tom Hanks and his bullshit! No more Tom Hanks! No more John Travolta, No more Kevin Costner....Okay I am sounded a bit bitter, it's just I haven't had my morning coffee yet....
The Master of Manipulation by Powerslave	Dec 9th, 1999 01:19:25 PM
Alfred Hitchcock - who knew a thing or two about directing - once said: "I enjoy playing the audience like a violin."
Acappellaman & Warrior by r_dimitri22	Dec 9th, 1999 01:25:50 PM
Acappellaman>> I knew that it was intentional. My question was purely for the sake of rhetorical humor. We are obviously both sticklers for the written word, and I wondered if something that currently bothers me bothers you as well: the title Deuce Bigalow Male Gigolo. A gigolo by definition is male. As a friend of mine used to say when we were playing spades and he wanted to slough a card for a hand that his partner had already won: "Hi, we're from the Department of Redundancy Department." I don't usually go for the lowbrow humor, but Deuce Bigalow looks even shabbier in quality than most representatives of that genre. Showing that narcolepsy gag over and over in the trailers will definitely not induce me to go to the theater...Warrior>> I forgot to tell you. I already am in hell. I've got Mambo #5 stuck in my head!
I haven't seen the Green Mile, but I know the basic premise. by dennis	Dec 9th, 1999 01:30:12 PM
It seems obvious to me that the difference between American Beauty and The Green Mile is that AB was pushing the envelope. So did Fight Club. That doesn't mean either was better, but it does mean that those filmmakers were trying to take the medium to new places. I don't really see The Green Mile trying to do that. In fact, it seems like it's pretty much playing it safe (I may eat my words once I see the film, I'm admitting that now). But, don't the Oscars ALWAYS play it safe? I suspect that Mr. Hanks will not win again, that Spacey will win, that Benning will win, and that Hanks co-star who plays Coffey will win for Best Supporting Actor. Just based on what I've seen on the trailers, Hanks is playing a character he's done before. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but he's just not pushing it. Spacey by far has more depth than Hanks, based solely on the types of roles he's chosen for himself. Just my opinion :)
I agree with most of you about manipulation. by dennis	Dec 9th, 1999 01:41:02 PM
It must exist in the art world. But like a milkshake, if it isn't blended properly into the mix, you're going to have a watery, lumpy shake. Bad analogy, I know, but it's true. Patch Adams, for example -- they weren't even trying with that film. I refused to see it because people who had wasted their money agreed: it was blantantly manipulative. Like anything else in life, you can have too much of one thing, or it's bad for you. Patch Adams telegraphed its teary-eyed message from a mile away. The modern audience is too sarcastic for this kind of crap. Now, I know I'm going to bawl at the end of The Green Mile, I know that going into it. But, I also know the caliber of the writing, the direction and the casting on this film, and I think given those factors they will make it worth my while, and my $8.50.
Tom Hanks by Duke	Dec 9th, 1999 01:51:45 PM
Tom Hanks is the Jimmy Stewart for our generation. He is an "every man" that allows us to picture ourselves in a role. I won't comment on whether he is "the" actor of the nineties or overrated or otherwise. I will say, however, that like most "average guys" I can relate to him (other than as Gump, thank God) and visualize myself in the situations his characters are thrown in and I believe that such is his strength as an actor. BTW it really pisses me off when someone bitches about spelling or "grammer" when they are living in a glass house.
The Green Mile, my review. Good but not great by dands	Dec 9th, 1999 01:56:49 PM
I saw a preview of the Green Mile a couple of months ago. Although, it was not the finished product, judging from the early reviews I have read, not much, if anything, has changed. I thought the movie was good, but is not at the same level of Shawshank Redemption. The movie has many positive aspects that make it worth seeing. The acting is great overall, especially by Hanks and Morse. Morse has become one of my favorites. The cinematography is excellent, music good, and the story is strong (for the most part) with a sublime epilogue. It is touching and haunting. The movie is too long though. I was hoping they would edit it more before its release, but apparently that was not done. There is a lot of fat that can be trimmed from the movie. It would have made a tighter more powerful movie. Also, some of the characters are painted with too wide a brush, they are caricatures rather than real people. This is especially true of the bad guys. All they need are capes and pointed mustaches. Finally, there is, for me at least, a huge narrative flaw towards the end of the movie. I do not want to give away any of the plot, but it left me with an uneasy feeling, like something was not right. Although it sets up the outstanding epilogue, it is a weakness and inconsistency in the main story. As a whole, I liked the movie, but these things keep me from putting a label of great on it. I recommend it though, definately worth checking out for its positives.
ManOwaR by r_dimitri22	Dec 9th, 1999 02:16:45 PM
Just in time for the holidays, Wild Wild West is available to own on DVD and video! If you're ever in the mood to inflict a living hell upon yourself...
RE: AgentCole by mrbeaks	Dec 9th, 1999 02:26:14 PM
Do I think those films were better than HOOK or THE LOST WORLD? No, I think they're all pretty awful, and wouldn't spend the time trying to rank them (though SABRINA is probably the best of the bunch. Also, since Spielberg was absent a great deal from the set of TLW, I think it's debatable whether or not it's even his film.) As for David Lynch, IMO, he's made a number of bad films. DUNE, in any version, was an abomination. Visually arresting, but inept in every other department (and extra demerits for incorporating Toto into the score.) I've never much cared for WILD AT HEART, either. It plays like a Lynch brainstorming session put to film. Some neat ideas, but they're all so disconnected that it's hard to care. For the record, I really liked FIRE WALK WITH ME, even though I hated the final season of TWIN PEAKS. Granted, it's a complete mess, but it's never less than interesting. Finally, to anyone who would prefer DEUCE BIGELOW over THE GREEN MILE..... oh, forget it!
When's Harry on Ebert's show again? by All Thumbs	Dec 9th, 1999 02:29:37 PM
Just wanted to know...and this is a movie I've been waiting for for the entire summer. I am one of those people who worships the ground Frank Darabont walks on after seeing Shawshank, a movie which slowly climbed into my top ten by repeated viewing on TNT. I am also one of those who, despite the overkill hype and the backlash against him, enjoys Tom Hanks movies immensly. The person who said he is the Jimmy Stewart of our time is correct; Hanks is this generation's everyman and is a better actor than some of his roles will let him be. As with most actors, there's the problem of him doing movies where he doesn't go beyond his personal traits of acting. That sucks, but it doesn't mean he or those movies aren't any good, in my opinion. You ever notice Kevin Spacey playing Kevin Spacey-ish roles? Or Malkovich playing Malkovich-type roles? It happens all the time.***And BTW, I happen to think that while it's really cheesy, Joe vs. the Volcano is a fun and highly underrated movie. There's a lot of message and symbolism in that film that goes unnoticed. Plus, that luggage kicks ass.
Manipulation pt. 267 by The Gline	Dec 9th, 1999 02:33:23 PM
"Patch Adams telegraphed its teary-eyed message from a mile away." Hell, it cattle-branded its message into the audience's ass. And yet that movie made money. Why? P.T. Barnum was right. Or, as someone else said, "Looks like genocide may have untapped possibilities."
On Directing! (For Portnoy) by Peregrin	Dec 9th, 1999 02:45:43 PM
"Directors make movies." Oh, Really? That's a nice pat answer for a craft that involves HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE. I see your enjoyment of the incredibly simplistic and derivative material that permeates Spielberg's films has impeded your ability to understand the nature of COLLABORATIVE effort. Spielberg doesn't sit in a room, by himself and come out six months later with a film you fucking moron. Have you ever read the list of credits for one of his films? Why doesn't it just say "Steven Spielberg" and that's it. Film is one of the most collaborative efforts there is, and to make simple assumptions like that only proves that you are in fact the one who knows absolutely nothing about anything! Films can be good for any number of reasons independent from the director. A film can have a great script. Does that mean the director wrote it? Of course not. Does Spielberg do his own cinematography? Of course not. A film can have a large number of things going for it such as screenplay, photography, special effects, acting, editing, etc. without the director doing a single fucking thing. That's what Spielberg does you mullet! He hires the best people, pays them well, and admittedly isn't even there for a large portion of the shooting on a significant number of his films. Therefore it is no surprise to me that Spielberg's films generally demonstrate technical superiority and great acting -- he can spend the bucks. But when you strip all that away what are you left with? An incredibly muddled vision, at times horrible shooting, an overly simplistic theme, and not much else. To claim that Spielberg made Saving Private Ryan what it is preposterous. Yes he got someone to spend 90 million on a war film, but beyond that he didn't do jack shit. The scenes were based on real life events that have a tremendous power and impact IN AND OF THEMSELVES; there is no power that he has attached to it other than the money to render the scenes more spectacular than we've previously seen. It doesn't take a genius to stand there and say I want to have a spectacular battle scene with a lot of explosions, and a lot of people, and I want it too look like a worn postcard. It takes anyone with a half-a-fucking brain Face it, the emperor has no clothes...
jtrenton, our 'critic' in San Diego... by TuxKamen	Dec 9th, 1999 03:01:44 PM
...has a tendency to give any movie that isn't a total pile of crap but not four-star material two stars. . o O ( Oh, I can't make up my mind on this one, it's kind of good, but not great--we'll give it one star, plus one for effort!) Usually you just add a star to every one of his reviews to get what the 'real' score is. Now, that gives The Green Mile two stars. I still don't agree with that; I think the length of the film bored our poor little (hah) critic, like it did with Shawshank, and he took away the 'effort star'... I personally enjoyed TGM, but it, like Shawshank, is a movie I could have enjoyed just as well on video; it has that kind of 'watch it when you want to see something better than the crap on your TV' quality.
Best actor of this generation by busorama	Dec 9th, 1999 03:07:13 PM
If you want to talk about the "Best actor of his generation" (and by generation I mean the actors who rose to prominence in the decade between roughly 1985 and 1995--30-45 year old actors, so DeNiro and Pacino are too old and Norton is too young) then the only real answers are Tom Cruise and Tom Hanks. And when it comes right down to it, Cruise beats Hanks any day. Now, I'll argue for Kevin Spacey as the best pure actor of this generation, but in terms of acting ability and star quality, Cruise is the big winner. While Hanks may have the Oscars and the "New Jimmy Stewart" mantle, Cruise has used his star status to take huge risks and work with the finest directors. Hanks plays the same character in nearly every movie, just with one difference (In Gump he's mentally deficient. In Philadelphia he's homosexual. In Saving Private Ryan he's in the army.). Hanks knows his weaknesses, and he avoids them by playing the everyman-who-rises-to-the-chal lenge in every movie. Cruise, on the other hand, is fully aware of his weaknesses and uses them as his strengths. Watch "Eyes Wide Shut." Cruise's vacant Hollywood expression is perfect for the wealthy socialite who hides any number of secret longings. Compare the list of directors each has worked with. Cruise: Kubrick, PT Anderson, Levinson, Stone, Ridley Scott, De Palma, Woo, Jordan, Crowe. Hanks: Ephron, Zemeckis, Spielberg, Darabont, Demme, Howard. While each is a fine list of directors, Cruise's stands out because those directors are unafraid to take risks. Hanks' directors, while excellent filmmakers,are relatively safe. Just as I don't see Cruise doing two romantic comedies with Meg Ryan, I don't see Hanks spending two years in London with Stanley Kubrick and then taking a cameo in PT Anderson's next movie. Each has also been in bad movies (and they both costarred with Shelley Long early in their careers), but when looking at their respective bodies of work, Cruise gets the upper hand. It seems that Hanks is interested in protecting his image, while Cruise is interested in shattering it every chance he gets. And that, essentially, is why Tom Cruise is the best actor of his generation.
Tom Cruise Makes Sense! by Peregrin	Dec 9th, 1999 03:17:23 PM
Nice point Busorama! Tom Cruise really isn't afraid to take risks and follow his instincts. I think 'Eyes Wide Shut' will forever cement that in my mind; despite how under-rated his performance in that film was, every time I've scene it I've been amazed at the how well he carries the entire film. I don't believe that was an easy performance by any means...
Cole Control & Peregrin by mrbeaks	Dec 9th, 1999 03:28:31 PM
I haven't seen WILD AT HEART in a while, but I haven't wanted to, either. As for Peregrin..... where do you come up with this stuff? I stated above that he wasn't on set for a great deal of TLW, but that was one film. You took that little nugget and applied it to his entire body of work, which is not truthful (trust me, I know people who've worked with him.) He has no vision? Bullshit. He's the man who had to shoot around a malfunctioning shark and came up with the idea of partially submerging the camera to keep the audience off-balance (a new idea at the time.) He also works closely with his editors, and can cut an action sequence with more precision than anyone working today (with the possible exception of Cameron.) To make a blanket statement like you did above demonstrates ignorance of the man's work, and, by your reliance on speculation as damning evidence, damages the validity of your opinion on anything.
Busorama, don't get me started on Cruise! by cady	Dec 9th, 1999 03:31:30 PM
Cruise's "vacant Hollywood expression" is just that: VACANT HOLLYWOOD EXPRESSION. If EYES WIDE SHUT had a better actor at its center, it would've been a more involving movie. Kubrick spent over two years on the film and that's all he could get from Cruise? And what else did Cruise do with his vacant expression in EWS? To express anguish, he dragged his palm down across his vacant Hollywood face. If I had to choose between Hanks and Cruise, I'd choose Hanks and pray for a miracle. Miracles are funny things, you know, you never know when they're going to happen. Blech!
Eternal... by cady	Dec 9th, 1999 03:48:26 PM
You're eternally stupid for saying what you said.
Directors by Cyclopentadiene	Dec 9th, 1999 03:51:47 PM
It was stated that Spielberg's movies were good solely because he hires top notch people to work with...although having a good crew is important, the director is the key. Compare the visuals in "Rushmore" to the ones in "Dogma" (both fairly low-budget affairs) ...the movies had the same cinematographer, but Rushmore is by far superior visually...the difference was due to the director.
Hm... by Darth Boner	Dec 9th, 1999 04:00:05 PM
I feel like jumping in. It's hardly fair to judge a director based on his worst films. Moreover, it's much less fair to judge directors who have two VERY different bodies of work. I mean, Kubrick's pinnacle is 2001: A Space Odyssey, by just about anyone's standards. Spielberg's is Raiders of the... No, I mean, Close Enc.... Wait, no, it's... See what I'm saying? Plus, Spielberg's best works are about sparking the imagination, and giving a sense of adventure and romanticism. Kubrick's best works were about exploring humanity and making you think about yourself and others (emotionally, psychologically, and whatnot). But the biggest gap between the two is that Spielberg purely sets out to entertain. Kubrick's goal was to deliver the deepest and most layered film possible. Let's take two of their greatest films for example. Close Encounters of the Third Kind: A movie about a man who gives up his way of life purely for a bit of adventure and discovery, and is taken aboard on an alien spaceship. Granted, this sounds really freakin' stupid, but Spielberg makes it work because you begin to feel empathy for Richard Dreyfuss. 2001: A Space Odyssey: A movie about two men going to Jupiter on a spaceship with a psychotic computer, with the surviving member of the crew changing into some sort of bla bla bla bla bla (cut into jibberish because my infantile intellect can hardly comprehend the last 20 or so minutes of the film). This sounds dull, and for a large part of the time, it is. But when the movie is reflected upon, we see the tragedy of our destiny, and man's place in the whole scheme. HAL is more human and more emotional than the shell of a man aboard the sterile and lifeliess Discovery. HAL reasons his actions, and reasons with Bowman to let him live. I cannot recall Bowman once showing any emotion other than a slight hint of frustration after HAL refused to "open the pod bay doors". Then, the monolith shit went down, and I lost it. Granted, I've only seen the film maybe half a dozen times, but I still lose it. Anyways, I hope the point has been made--Spielberg and Kubrick are two very different directors. Too different to compare. It all depends if you want to think about yourself, OR if you want to think about the splendor of life and the excitement within it. To sum it up: Damn, this is a long post.
Eternal, the funniest thing is that... by r_dimitri22	Dec 9th, 1999 04:00:50 PM
...over 90 percent of the posting people (including myself) probably haven't even seen The Green Mile yet, and this is a Green Mile review talkback! We're all so eager to discuss films that we attack a new talkback the minute that it's available. Harry should post his reviews in time for us to use them (if we so wish) in making a decision to see the film, but perhaps talkbacks for a movie review should not open up until the movie has been out at least a day or two. Is that technically feasible? It's just a suggestion, and I realize I'm part of the problem.
Agentcole, they both suck! by cady	Dec 9th, 1999 04:01:54 PM
Ok, forget about choosing. If I had to choose, I'd rather stick needles in my eyes. EWS bored the crap out of me. Sorry, Mr. Kubrick, I'm a big fan, but I hated to see you go on such a sour note. I didn't care about the characters. There should've been more Nicole and her butt and less Tom and his vacant face. And someone should've shot the pianist playing that one-note music.
Spielberg's action sequences?!!? by Peregrin	Dec 9th, 1999 04:05:05 PM
More precision than anyone alive today? Please. I'd take John Woo, Walter Hill, Paul Veerhoven, or a number of others any day of the week! He works closely with his editors? Are we talking about the same Spielberg? Have you ever seen Jurassic Park[or Jurassic Park 2 for that matter]? The film was an editing abomination! Perhaps you didn't notice the jeeps that change direction, the jeep that falls right through Sam Neil's leg, or the 100 foot drop that wasn't there in the previous scene, or the raptors that jump on things that aren't even there. That's editing for you! I agree with AgentCole; it's clear that Spielberg can't possibly be doing all you fan-boys claim with the number of films the man releases!
I like Eyes Wide Shut a lot... by dennis	Dec 9th, 1999 04:23:48 PM
But I thought the orgy scene was a piece of $hit, and too over the top. Everything else though was very involving, and I thought Cruise did a fine job. To me, it seemed as though his character was just reacting to the events that took place around him, instead of creating those events himself. For me the film was about a man facing a moral test. And Cruise passes in the end, despite his obvious desire to do otherwise. It had an interesting message.
If You Want To Nitpick..... by mrbeaks	Dec 9th, 1999 04:28:37 PM
I could go on all day about John Woo, and squibs that rearrange themselves, disappear, etc. And it's easy to avoid continuity errors when you throw so many gunmen into the mix (e.g. THE KILLER) that it's impossible to keep track of who's going where, or being shot. And I'm a huge fan of Woo's work! Oh, you'd rather Walter Hill? You can have him this winter in SUPERNOVA!!! That sequence in JP was undoubtedly a difficult one to stage, and perhaps they had to cut around some stuff. Happens all the time. Also, the manipulation of objects with editing in order to heighten tension is a time-honored tradition as old as the serials of the 40's and 50's (see RAIDERS for better illustration of this.) Check out the trailer hanging over the cliff in TLW for a better sequence (though, I'll admit, I don't really like either film all that much, save for the f/x work.) But the fact that Spielberg surrounds himself with talented people serves as damning evidence that he's a hack..... did it ever occur to you that these people want to work with him out of respect and admiration? And your $90 million estimate on SPR is way off the mark. If you knew anything about the industry, you'd know that Spielberg is renowned for his ability to keep budgets from spiraling out of control.
Acgentcole by cady	Dec 9th, 1999 04:35:34 PM
Can we agree to disagree on this one without getting disagreeable? Like I said, I'm a big Kubrick fan. But EWS just didn't work for me.
Actually, Dark Penguin..... by mrbeaks	Dec 9th, 1999 04:35:45 PM
On the Pritchard Scale of Acting, an actor who rates a seven on "facial expressions" and a 5 on "risk-taking" denotes an actor of great merit.
I disagree with Harry.....(spoilers) by Rraggedy	Dec 9th, 1999 04:39:46 PM
I saw it at the premiere also, and actually agree with the execs. Perhaps I expected too much (especially since Shawshank is one of my favorite movies of all time....and it is about Hope Reborn, not about a prison...that is just where the movie takes place), and in expecting a great sophmore effort from jump of the movie I expected to be sitting on the edge of my seat the entire time. Well, I wasn't. Don't get me wrong, this is a VERY good film....but had it been shorter, it could've been great! I realize now why there needed to be bookends on the film, but I felt we should've started with the prison. Had it started there and ended as him being an old man in the home, I would've been thoroughly satisfied. Instead I have to sit through a good 30 minutes of waiting....waiting for the stuff I came to see. Also, in what world do we live in when Jerry Springer shares ANY screen time with the great actors of this film and in a film directed by Darabont. That was a major stomach turner. It was nearly an hour before the things of real interest began to happen. It doesn't need to be a big cut, but trimming some scenes would make that first hour move faster along getting to the stuff that will win the Oscars.
Nitpicking about 100 foot drops! by Peregrin	Dec 9th, 1999 04:44:22 PM
I understand the notion of altering the mise-en-scene in a film, in fact I'm very familiar with it, and it is a time honored tradition, but Jurassic Park was certainly not an instance of anything intentional. We aren't talking about squibs moving around a bit here, we are talking about 100 foot drops that didn't exist in the previous frame! I'd hardly call that nit-picking. I'd call it bad editing. As for that scene being so difficult? For what? As far as I can tell there aren't many elements to keep track of and there isn't a thing worth shooting around. And the trucks that change direction? Come on, it amazes me how you fan-boys overlook the overwhelmingly obvious. I didn't think "American Beauty" was the best film of the year, but I did enjoy it, and I do appreciate the sentiment "Never Underestimate The Power Of Denial." Proof of Spielberg's ineptness is revealed in your own dialogues when you claim specifically that Spielberg only makes movies to entertain. It doesn't take a genius to entertain. The Rolling Stones have been entertaining people for far longer than Spielberg has, and they certainly aren't Bach! The same is true for the Spielberg vs. Kubrick debate. It is self-evidently obvious that it is requires a hell of a lot more talent to make a film that is many layered, textured, thematically brilliant, and makes a profound statement about the human condition than it is to "entertain."
BTW, THE IRON GIANT is the year's best..... by Rraggedy	Dec 9th, 1999 04:54:52 PM
Uuuhhh, hello?!?! With all this talk of the year's best, how about the Iron Giant? When you talk about the year's best, they should be films you want to see over and over and over. All of the films you guys mentioned were great, but I can see and get all these movies for free. The Iron Giant is the ONLY one I paid to see twice and then bought the first day at the video store. It is the only film where I laughed and cried in the same breath....don't sleep on T.I.G!!
I'm Not Arguing That Spielberg's Better Than Kubrick by mrbeaks	Dec 9th, 1999 04:59:46 PM
I never would, as Kubrick is my favorite filmmaker of all time. I'm just trying to debunk all of this bullshit that Spielberg is somehow not worthy of the accolades he has received over the years. I won't continue to argue the JP scene until I see it again, but I will bring up the truck sequence in RAIDERS as evidence of brilliant editing. As far as action sequences go, it's unquestionably one of the best. Again, JAWS, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, 1941 (the USO dance in particular,) RAIDERS, E.T...... they're all about as tightly edited as any film I've ever seen. And the Omaha Beach opening of SPR, as well as the final battle, also belong in that group. I understand you want to reveal Spielberg as an unqualified hack, but, no matter how hard you wish it to be true, it just ain't gonna happen.
A Review Like This Is What Is GREAT About AICN. Thanks, Harry by smilin'jackruby	Dec 9th, 1999 05:01:15 PM
'Nuff said. If anyone wants to criticize my post, let 'em. I won't read 'em. Hee hee hee.
To Portnoy by Pomona88	Dec 9th, 1999 05:03:51 PM
I think you're way off about directors. Best Director and Best Picture often DON'T go to the same movie. In fact, sometimes one of them isn't even nominated. Modern directors involve themselves in many aspects of production (cinematography, editing, scoring), but that's more of an oversight function. "Directing" is about eliciting good performances from actors. It's perfectly possible to edit a film well and to ensure that the FX and music are good, but still not have really good performances. That's what we see with Spielberg. He does a great job with most aspects of production, but the performances in his films are generally cartoonish or maudlin. Spielberg is, therefore, not a great "director." His talents lie elsewhere.
Nat'l Board of Review Awards by Lazarus Long	Dec 9th, 1999 05:15:05 PM
Well, it looks like the opening shots have been fired in the Oscar race. The National Board of Review named "American Beauty" Best film of the year, and also ranked the Top 10 films of the year, which DID NOT INCLUDE THE GREEN MILE. #2 was "The Talent Mr. Ripley", which apparently wasn't even the final release version. #3 "Magnolia", #4 "The Insider", with Russell Crowe winning Best Actor. Before you agree/disagree with this voting group's credibility, you can easily locate a list of past choices. I think the fact that they chose AB as #1 is a pretty bold move. Let's hope Dreamworks can pull the same upset that happened to them last year and drive this baby to Best Picture at the Oscars. To comment on the argument about Spielberg, I'll say what I've said before: Spielberg has a great imagination, and he's a skilled craftsman, but HE IS NOT AN ARTIST. There is a lack of originality of vision that is glaringly apparent. "Jaws" and "Close Encounters" are masterpieces, but as much as I like Indiana Jones, that series is all Harrison Ford, and contains nothing that hasn't been done in many old adventure films of the 30's and 40's, especially "Gunga Din" which most of "Temple of Doom" is lifted from. Check out John Huston's "The Man Who Would Be King" for reference as well. I read one critic who said that all "Saving Private Ryan" proved was that Spielberg had memorized every great war film that came before. What makes "Apocalypse Now" and "Thin Red Line" superior films is their unique vision that doesn't seem derived from a bunch of old film clips. "SPR" is notable only for the opening, which IS ALL JANUS KAMINSKI. If you don't think SPIELBERG is the greatest director of all time, who is, and what makes them better? After you learn what separates Spielberg from his superiors Orson Welles, Martin Scorsese, Alfred Hitchcock, you will begin to understand that he's really a hack who just has the money and clout to anything he wants at the highest level of technical quality. He'll never get a performance of someone like Welles did, or Scorsese. His name may go down in history, but it's too squeaky clean--making Schindler's List in B & W is not risky filmmaking, because he'll never try something that he thinks people may not understand or appreciate. Those risks are part of what makes up a true artist.
Another talkback that degenerates into an anti-Spielberg discuss by Smack	Dec 9th, 1999 05:22:42 PM
Obviously Agent Cole, or whatever his name his, doesn't like Spielberg or his movies. He happens to by my favorite director, but I respect that people may not share my opinion. I have to disagree with some things that have been said, though. First of all, this idea that Spielberg is continually pumping out movies. Let's examine his movies that have been released in the 90's year by year: 1990-nothing 1991-nothing 1992-nothing 1993-Jurassic Park, Schindler's List 1994-nothing 1995-nothing 1996-nothing 1997-The Lost World, Amistad 1998-Saving Private Ryan 1999-nothing. So that makes five movies he's made in the 90's. Oh yeah, he's just pumping them out isn't he Agent Cole? Kubrick didn't spend 10 years between films because he was so attuned to detail. He did it because he was an eccentric recluse. Uh oh. I did the unthinkable. I said something negative about the mighty and infallible Kubrick. Hopefully no geeks try to kill me on my way home from work.
Facials by cady	Dec 9th, 1999 05:38:23 PM
Someone ranted about how the number of expressions doesn't matter in a performance. I agree, but when an actor plays the same role over and over (re: Hanks, Cruise), then those expressions get tiresome. Regarding Hanks and Cruise's ability to inhabit their roles, I'd inhabit a role too if I kept playing it. Hanks needs to get away from the nice guy roles and Cruise needs to stop playing the cocky guy who gets the girl (even EYES WIDE SHUT is just another variation of that formula: he gets Nicole, loses Nicole, gets Nicole back). It's also difficult to compare today's stars with yesterday's. Bogart and company were certainly more charismatic than today's stars, but they weren't given as much chance to expand their range. There is no way of telling how versatile an actor they really were. I guess you could say that yesterday's actors were better stars and today's stars are better actors.
Well said Lazarus...And poorly said SMACK by Peregrin	Dec 9th, 1999 05:38:24 PM
As far as Lazarus goes: my sentiments exactly! But for SMACK I'd have to say you're just a little bit off; you see 5 films is a hell of a lot to make in one decade. Especially when the bulk of those have been special effects laden films with notoriously long pre-production and post-production. Read "The Making Of Jurassic Park" -- Spielberg wasn't even on the same continent for most of the editing or the compositing of the dinosaurs -- he was too busy filming Schindler's List!
YEAH THE REVOULTION BEGINS by elryano	Dec 9th, 1999 05:41:27 PM
hello yep more reasons why it needs to begin right here.....another good review by harry......another part of his soul sold to.....i though would like to see him and ebert on the show together although u gotta have a thin guy cause thats how people tell em apart......u know theres the fat guy and the skinny guy.....although harry would just end up givin everything thumbs-ups...damn whore
You wanna-be film grads! by Funmazer	Dec 9th, 1999 05:42:05 PM
Brother! What is with you people? What is with JUMPING all over somebody? Today it's Speilberg VS Kubrick. Kubrick seems to be everyone's favorite, and Speilberg is a hack. Well, I'd like to end the agrument. Speilberg made Raiders. Kubrick didn't. Speilberg wins. The end. It's as simple as that. You know, if we went back in time, like, long before EYES WIDE SHUT came out, I bet a lot of you wouldn't even give a rat's ass about Kubrick. Seems every time a director comes out of hiding and says "I'm not dead! I'm going to make a film!" he's instantly labeled better than anyone. As for Green Mile, I didn't think the book(s) was all that great. Especially the 'evil rest-home guy'. Christ, they did that in HAPPY GILMORE! And I saw the MILE trailer a while back and I thought "God, this looks cheesy." Does Coffey do anything BUT smile in the fricking movie? "This guy is supposedly a killer, let's make him SMILE constantly so the audience knows better!". I'll go see it, I'm sure, but I'm waiting for DOC SAVAGE! As for this being the BEST YEAR FOR FILM, well, there were 2 films that made me happy. I judge movies by the "there's hope for Hollywood yet" factor. THE MATRIX already very underappreciated by the holier-than-thou crowd, but a glorious return to smart, intelligent action movies that make you cheer. TOY STORY 2. Every time I think about this movie, I smile. I laughed all the way thru it, it's so brilliant. More for adults than kids, but kids will like it to. And, yes, BETTER than Iron Giant! Toy Story 2 was a glorious fest of pure cinematic magic, I was beaming with joy after seeing it. That's why I like those kind of movies better than something like American Beauty. While a very good film, it didn't make me feel GIDDY with pure enjoyment. But Spacey deserves an Oscar.
Funmazer... by dennis	Dec 9th, 1999 06:09:18 PM
I agree! Ben Stiller's role as the "evil rest-home guy" was underappreciated.
Spielberg vs. the world by Cyclopentadiene	Dec 9th, 1999 06:14:44 PM
Here's my take on the Spielberg debate. Some people think he's a hack because a select group of directors are better (Welles, Kubrick, etc). But come on, if you chose not to include him in the pantheon of greats, does that make him a hack? heck no! Then some people say Speilberg sucks and every other director is better...those people are stupid. The other mistake people make is claiming he is only out to "entertain". This just isn't the case...What he says what he's out to do is "tell a story", which he can and has done with depth, creativity and artistry. His movies like COLOR PURPLE, SCHINDLER'S LIST, and EMPIRE OF THE SUN are definately not drivel meant to entertain the masses...they are and were intended to be works of art, with complex characters, shades of meaning,etc...making the audience think (which alot of you guys don't, since as soon as you see sentimentality, you dismiss the film...but you don't have to be Ironic or cynical to be a good filmmaker) And anyone who dismisses Spielbergs technical prowess doesn't know anything about filmmaking...
Actors by Cyclopentadiene	Dec 9th, 1999 06:20:07 PM
man this years best actor race is gonna be tough... Tom Hanks most likely did a good job in the GREEN MILE, and we all know how the academy loves him. Jim Carrey and Kevin Spacey give killer performances. But the winner is...JOHN MALKOVICH. His role in Being John Malkovich was one of the most challenging roles I've ever seen, and he pulled it off perfectly. malkovich, malkovich, malkovich
Kevin Spacey is cool, but American Beauty sucked rocks. by Drath	Dec 9th, 1999 06:23:58 PM
No, it did. That movie offered nothing but misery and hopelessness. Maybe it'll be better on video. That happens, and I come to like movies that I retched on in theaters. But I was hideously disappointed with that overrated POS. I have much higher Oscar hopes for The Green Mile, Talente Mr. Ripley, and Magnolia.
I Forgot To Put Showgirls On My Ten Worst List. Oh Well, Showgi by Jake The Snake	Dec 9th, 1999 06:39:12 PM
I have a problem with calling Showgirls a bad movie. To me, a "bad" movie is one that just wastes my time. I get nothing out of it. No amusement, insight, entertainment, no nothing. Showgirls has to be one of the funniest movies ever made. Every aspect of the film was just so horribly done that it's good. The dialogue is shit, the characters are about as deep as a blowup backyard kiddie pool, the plot is thinner than Ally McBeal, and to think, it cost 40 million smackers?! John Waters put it best when he said; "Showgirls is that rare film that wasn't in on the joke." Now Alien Resurrection, there's a film that has no redeemable qualities and I sincerely apologize for not having put it down there as low as Batman & Robin and Chevy Chase's filmography.
Whoops, I meant to say "Dishonorable Mention" by Jake The Snake	Dec 9th, 1999 06:40:44 PM

I Love a Parade! by Anton_Sirius	Dec 9th, 1999 06:45:08 PM
Kubrick vs. Speilberg: Well, Kubrick is about eighty gazillion times more challenging, so I guess I like him better, when I'm in the mood to be challenged. (And in that list of 'directors who have done no wrong' one was overlooked: Charles Laughton.) I do think Speilberg has gotten, I don't know, soft in recent years, but the problems with Private Ryan were not Speilberg's, they resided in the 'have our cake and eat it too' script and the acting. Which brings us to the other great debate- Hanks vs. Cruise. I'm tempted to say kill 'em both and let God sort it out, but I'm willing to wait for Magnolia before shoving the barrel down Cruise's throat. All his previous so-called great performances just left me cold, though. (Notice how every time we get one of those critics say "THIS is the one where he proves he can act." How many chances does he get?) As for Hanks, he isn't this generation's Jimmy Stewart (I think Tobey Maguire is angling for that one) he's this generation's Spenser Tracy, in that thirty years from now people are going to ask themselves "How the fuck did he win back-to-back Oscars?" He's what I call a useful actor- he has a role that he plays well enough for the masses, and if you plug him into the right part he won't embarass himself, and can in fact entertain. But greatest actor of his generation? Jim Varney has just as much right to that title. I say you have to beat the Man to be the Man, which means Bobby Deniro still holds the crown. But fine, for the sake of argument, just focusing on this decade's work... Anthony Hopkins destroys both Toms. (Silence AND Remains of the Day? No contest.) Denzel has been more consitantly great than either of them. Morgan Freeman too, for that matter. And how can we forget the two master chameleons, Johnny Depp and Gary Oldman? Any of these, and many more (even non A-listers like Turturro and Roth) have a better claim to the title greatest ACTOR of the decade than the Toms. We live in a fucking acting GOLDEN AGE, and people still revere Tom Hanks. What a joke.
Amrican Beauty - Hope and Change! by NinerFan	Dec 9th, 1999 07:02:45 PM
If you think AB was about misery and hopelessness, you saw a radically different movie than I did. I saw a movie that showed a man moving beyond the rat race he was trapped in, and becoming the man he had always thought he'd be - a father and husband. At least he gets there, going past the milquetoast and obnoxious jerk stages. The people in this movie change, really change, and in very human ways - not just in dramatic movie fashion. This movie can be hysterically funny and tragically heartbreaking, but ultimately I felt uplifted - and changed, too. And don't forget gorgeous, spare, elegant and eloquent cinematography. A truly bauhaus film. I say - SEE IT AGAIN!
Finally..... by mrbeaks	Dec 9th, 1999 07:14:58 PM
As was said above, I find it hard to believe that a true film lover could hate Spielberg. We all have our favorites, but the man's contributions to the medium are beyond reproach.
Anyone notice... by Zelig	Dec 9th, 1999 07:23:48 PM

Anyone notice... by Zelig	Dec 9th, 1999 07:24:32 PM
...how easy it is to get AgentCole all bent out of shape?
Is Anton Sirius a retard? by golgo-14	Dec 9th, 1999 07:38:06 PM
In his post this bitch-ass said "Tom Hanks sucks. Tobey Maguire is the true Jimmy Stewart of that generation." Well fuck me! I didn't even know Tobey Maguire and Tom Hanks were in the same generation! You probably saw the trailer for that new movie Tobey Maguire's in where he does the forgettable Jimmy Stewart as "I am such a pure noble human being and better than you" imitation. How can you compare Tom Hanks, one of our great actors, to some Teeny Bopper cover-boy ex-Jonathan Brandis wannabe? Have you seen Philadelphia? The Green Mile? Saving Private Ryan? Big? I will excuse your boorish lack of intelligence if the only movies you've seen with Tom Hanks were Turner and hooch and Bonfire of The Vanities. Otherwise, your dumber than a rock. Oh, and Pleasantville sucked. I was so bored I had to eject the tape after 5 minutes, smash it into fine bits with a sledge hammer, and bury the foresaken remains in my backyard. Fuck blockbuster. I'll pay for the movie when they start carrying KIDS.
Philedelphia by Loki Trickster	Dec 9th, 1999 07:47:02 PM
Okay...let me get this straight (no pun intended). "Philedelphia" is a "gay movie for homophobes"...please explain this to me, whoever it was that said it (I think it was "cady"). I watched this movie two days ago with my best friend (who happens to be gay), and he was weeping uncontrollably at the end. Yes, it's manipulative...but it earns that manipulation. The scene with Hanks listening to opera with Denzel is incredible...of all the honors that Hanks has gotten, his Oscar for "Philedelphia" is the most richly deserved. -Loki
AgentCole is a really bright guy by Portnoy	Dec 9th, 1999 08:40:29 PM
Calling me a punk was a real mark of maturity on your part, AC. Spielberg and Kubrick are both great directors. I don't recall saying anything bad about Kubrick at all. Kubrick vs Speilberg is like a Corvette vs a Hummer. It just depends on what you want. Doing a lot of movies in a decade is not a bad thing. Doing a lot of bad movies is. Let's get something straight here. Spielberg is an artist, but like artists not everyone likes the same one. This doesn't make anyone better or worse. Just different. Spielberg and Kubrick are different they aren't the same. SO comparing them is stupid. Personally I would watch any Spielberg movie before and Kubrick movie, but that's just me. I've been told that some people liked Fight Club even though it had an ending that created the biggest plothole in movies this year. As for best movie of the year, without a doubt it's American Beauty. To me that movie is the quintessential movie of life in the 90's. So, Agent Cole, no I do not think that Spielberg is better than Kubrick. I think you are an ignorant reactionary who has proven to be a bigger idiot than peregrin ever hoped to be. At least peregrin had a point. Oh and Wild At Heart sucked big time. Not even Nicholas Cage liked that movie. And Eyes Wide Shut was Kubrick's weakest movie.
hey Smack - it's 6, you forgot Hook by Hotspur	Dec 9th, 1999 08:44:03 PM

My two cents on Spielberg, Kubrick and The Green Mile... by Kubrick	Dec 9th, 1999 08:45:52 PM
Speaking of Spielberg, since he's been brought up a lot in this discussion, I just read the latest issue of Esquire Magazine's dubious achivements of the millenium and Spielberg is named the dubious man of the millenium. It's because the magazine says he gave Drew Barrymore cocktails while filming ET and not giving the Germans their own point of view in his WWII film, Saving Private Ryan and is a racist because of such...in an earlier issue, the magazine called the film propaganda and the only difference is the uniforms worn are US uniforms and not Nazi uniforms. By the way, speaking of Kubrick, the magazine's critic Tom Carson hates him, saying pretty much every movie he made was bad and the only okay movie he made was The Shining 1980. As for best movie of the year, Tom Carson thought Being John Malkovich was the year's best movie (I can't comment on this since I haven't been able to see it as of yet). And other people from Jeffrey Wells at Reel.com to Ted Casablanca at eonline.com have mentioned they've seen Magnolia and liked it, a lot. Wells in an earlier column at reel.com said The Green Mile was okay but not great and could have been done as an hour-long episode of Playhouse 90 in the 50's. Finally, I haven't seen The Green Mile yet but I want to see it. I'm surprised at the number of negative reviews raging against this film. For the record, EW gave it a grade of a B.
The Award by The Kid	Dec 9th, 1999 09:04:16 PM
I really don't think it's possible to hand the award out. The last year of the Twentieth Century, and the studios decide to go for broke. I have seen almost none of the films I wanted to (14, not 17, the pain....) but from what I have watched, heard, understood.....it is simply impossible to roll out a single Best Picture statue. DreamWorks produced American Beauty. Warner Brothers has this. Fox grew the biggest balls and rolled out Fight Club (in the same year as Episode I - the planets must have been aligned.). And Pixar...well, Pixar did what Pixar does. 'Nuff said. Oh yes, all this coupled with the fact that we finally received a new Star Wars film and the new (and final) Kubrick work (bless that man). So I simply don't see how it can be done. But I guess it must, and shall. Good luck to all.
One more by The Kid	Dec 9th, 1999 09:05:44 PM
I forgot Magnolia, but that will be shafted anyway.
For The Record..... by mrbeaks	Dec 9th, 1999 10:10:06 PM
I just threw in JP (letterboxed) and looked for those egregious 100 foot drops. Wouldn't you know, there's nothing of the sort. Looks like that statement was every bit as questionable as the others.
This review was too short by The guy	Dec 9th, 1999 10:11:48 PM
How the hell am I supposed to read a review, that only deals with the facts of the film? I ( and I'm sure I'm not alone here) want to know: 1)What you had to eat before, during and after the screening 2)How many times you took a dump that day 3)A step by step description about everything that happened to you leading up to the screening 4) Stories of your childhood. I'm disappointed, Knowles. Or am I too, being sarcastic as hell?
This review was too short by The guy	Dec 9th, 1999 10:12:53 PM
How the hell am I supposed to read a review, that only deals with the facts of the film? I ( and I'm sure I'm not alone here) want to know: 1)What you had to eat before, during and after the screening 2)How many times you took a dump that day 3)A step by step description about everything that happened to you leading up to the screening 4) Stories of your childhood. I'm disappointed, Knowles. Or am I also, being sarcastic as hell?
Spielberg bashing by QUIXOTE	Dec 9th, 1999 10:26:15 PM
Whether or not you're a fan of Spielberg's work, dismissing such an obviously talented artist smacks of elitism and self-satisfaction. Any number of sequences from JAWS, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK,or SAVING PRIVATE RYAN will testify to the fact that he has mastered all aspects of film storytelling.As for the argument that he can't direct actors, please refer to Christian Bale's work in EMPIRE OF THE SUN. Don't get me wrong, I'm not blind to the flaws in his work. There is an overabundance of mawkishness throughout his films. However, these instances are far outweighed by moments of power, thrills and just plain fun. For the record, I am also a huge fan of Kubrick's and will freely admit that, of the two, he is by far the more profound artist. That being said, I'd like to go on record as saying that A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is one of the most overrated films ever made! It is Kubrick at his worst- boring, repetitive and didactic. Once you get past the cool pop-art look and the cheap thrills, you may just notice that there's less here than meets the eye. Anybody got a problem with that?
One last thing for today. by Zelig	Dec 9th, 1999 10:33:18 PM
I hope I don't come off like I'm preaching, but this is the rant/observation that I've always wanted to make about this place. Ahem...(self-righteous mode: ON) "Peregrin is once again proving himself an idiot." "...you fucking moron..." "I will excuse your boorish lack of intelligence." "...I think you are an ignorant reactionary who has proven to be a bigger idiot..." The point is, all of the rabid Lynch Fans out there (AgentCole, Coop) and all of the rabid Kubrick fans out there (Kubrick), just like all the rabid Woody Allen fans out there (Zelig) have their faves on whats a 'good' film and whats not. Calling people names and shit just makes people come off looking like assholes, when that's probably not the case. I come to AICN every day while I'm at work, and I see that these forums are just stomping grounds for overinflated egos, rather than intelligent conversation. So what if TPM sucked? I get a paycheck. Life goes on. Who cares who will play Anakin, because when it really comes down to it, how much pull does Harry or any of us really have? We can only offer our input and advice, and if we really think that what we say CAN make a difference in what does or doesn't come to the big screen, then doesn't everyone think that it'd be a good idea to cut it with the third-grade schoolyard name-calling festivals? I mean seriously folks, do you have ANY idea as to what you look like to the people who are actually responsible for what goes on the screen when you bicker and boast about like that? Think about it...(self-righteous mode: OFF) ...out...
Feelin' The Love by Anton_Sirius	Dec 9th, 1999 11:34:57 PM
Ah, Golgo 14, when did you learn to read English? Yesterday? I won't even get into your inability to fathom sarcasm, since this is a print medium and it's a tedious, futile debate, but please indicate in your response (if you dare) where I sung the praises of Tobey Maguire. I believe I said something to the effect that he was 'angling' for the award- meaning the parts he has chosen to date would indicte he is cultivating an image not dissimilar to Capra's second-best leading man. But that's just gravy. On to the main course. For the record I have seen all of Hanks' major roles, and was singularly unimpressed by his work in all of them. Philadelphia especially was the kicker- not only did it finally convince me that Demme couldn't direct to save his life and that Jodie and Sir Tony saved his ass in Silence, but it cinched it for me that Hanks had the range of a dog on a two foot leash. That scene everyone raves about in particular, you know the one- badly written, stupidly lit with that idiotic red lighting, and poor Hanks so far out of his league (pun intended) that it was laughable. People were talking about 'manipulative' earlier- is there a more manipilative (in the worst possible sense) scene in the last decade than that one? Look, I had no problem with him when he was considered a lightweight comedic actor and stuck to those roles- and occasionally stretched with movies like Sleepless in Seattle. But as I said before, future generations will look back on his career and wonder how the fuck he became so popular, 'cause it sure ain't from his acting ability. (We are talking about a man who cannot shout and maintain an accent at the same time, after all.) The real reason he's got so much heat is simply money- he got lucky with Gump, became A-list as a result, and the studios have some dough riding on his continued success. So they drop awards and nominations on his undeserving head to maintain the illusion. Man, I can't wait for Tim Allen to get it into his head that he can make the same switch. Then we're in for some ACTING! BRILLIANT!
To Zelig by Anton_Sirius	Dec 9th, 1999 11:40:59 PM
Awww, but Da-ad, it was just getting FUN!
Best movie of the year... by Wonderguy	Dec 10th, 1999 01:16:37 AM
I completely disagree that Fight Club was the best movie of the year. That being said, I loved American Beauty, but there's another movie that not many people have seen yet that blew me away. Snow Falling on Cedars is the best movie I've seen thus far in '99. Now, I have yet to see Green Mile, but Snow ..., directed by Scott Hicks (the genius who made Shine) is amazing. The cinematography and score are phenomenal, and Max Von Sydow is my "hands-down" pick for best supporting actor (Malkovich, if he's considered for supporting actor-which I doubt because his role was too large, is second). It's a brilliant film, one bound to make Harry once again jump off his seat and proclaim even more joy for 1999 movies.
SHOWGIRLS ROCKS!!!! by GEEKBASHER 3.0	Dec 10th, 1999 01:48:43 AM
Does anyone know when the re-release date for Showgirls is? Now that is well-worthy cause...
Is this talkback over yet? by Lazarus Long	Dec 10th, 1999 02:31:23 AM
I don't know if anyone's even following this anymore so I'll try to be brief. People are just throwing the same arguments back and forth. I'll speak for the intelligent "Anti-Spielberg" (for lack of a better word) here to clarify some basic points: I don't think anyone here would say Spielberg is talentless, or that he sucks, or that his films suck. So stop claiming that as a lame defense of The Golden Boy. What most of us are saying is that we resent the fact he is considered Hollywood's best filmmaker. Does he make terrible, garbage films? Not usually. Granted Hook and The Lost World were probably the greatest arguments against the Auteur theory that I've ever seen, but for the most party, Spielberg picks his subject matter with care, and diversity. I won't deny that. He is attracted to good ideas, and appears to have a vision of how he wants to do them. Having said that, every film he does seems to turn into a fantasy, WHETHER OR NOT the film should. This unrealistic and inhuman display of theme and emotion is usually covered up with gushing, cheap manipulation, or visual equivalent thereof (see the recurrent use of the bright shining illumination shot found in every one of his films). I said it before: he seems to be unable or unwilling to push the boundaries of film language. The man is very intelligent, and he seems to have the entire arsenal and history of films memorized, but he fails to add anything to that director's handbook. This is something that even people like Mike Figgis of Leaving Las Vegas fame was able to do. Sam Mendes is doing it. David Fincher is doing it. Regurgitation is not art. It is entertainment, it might be moving, but let's not miscategorize. Again, we're not saying we don't enjoy many of his films. But many of them are flawed, few are original, and they definitely don't add up to calling him the greatest of this or any other time. And to the person who compared Spielberg & Toy Story 2: Toy Story 2 is good because it's supposed to be a cartoon, and is much more. Spielberg's are supposed to be much more, but are basically cartoons. Got it?
Lazarus Long is Right Again...And Gunray is still completely and by Peregrin	Dec 10th, 1999 09:17:48 AM
Congratulations Lazarus for stating observations intelligently and without the need for futile personal attacks! As for Gunray, there is no way to determine whose vision ends up where in cinema. Granted the director is supposed to be doing everything you claim, but rarely in fact are they. How could Spielberg's vision of the editing for "Jurassic Park" come to fruition if he was across the Atlantic filming "Schindler's List"? Clearly it could not. He admitted he missed a lot of filming on "The Lost World" and "Amistad," so where is his vision? The director can hardly communicate his vision effectively if he isn't even there! Take a careful look at what it means to even have vision. There is a fundamental difference between hiring one of the best cinematographers in the world and telling him to make this film look great [what Spielberg does] and actually manipulating the cinematography to reflect the statement the director is trying to make with his film [what Kubrick does]. Spielberg's films look great don't get me wrong, but in no way does the cinematography truly enhance the story, or at times even fit the story, it just makes the film look better. So the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan wasn't in the laughably horrendous script; so what? Like it takes a genius to figure out that if you open a film with the largest, most spectacular war scene ever staged it'll make the film better. Come on guys, that's common sense -- not brilliance. Every one of you acts as if directors in the past wouldn't have had scenes like that in their war movies if they could afford it or if they were technically possible...
David Lynch? Good lord by newfers	Dec 10th, 1999 09:18:03 AM
David Lynch never made a bad film? "Fire Walk With Me" was an abysmal mess - and I was a Twin Peaks FAN! and how about that film from 3 years back - I forget the name... oh my god, this is a first...a movie so bad I've forgotten the title... wow... but that's a GOOD thing! now if only I can forget the rest of the movie...
Spielberg is offensive by :-o	Dec 10th, 1999 09:18:16 AM
The long shot in 'List' where the soldiers shoot up the building in synch with the classical music is out of pace, badly timed and indefensable. It amplified his utter detachement from the subject--growing up in white bread suburbia watching Peter Sellers films and shit. Dada and black comedy can be touching, artful and are a genre all it's own--but Steven Spielberg timing is for shit. The scene where the gun gets jammed while Feinnes tries to execute the worker is also offensive. Reaching into his grab-bag of 'jaw droppers' left over from the Indy and Dino movies is not what I call visionary...it's more like greedy.
1999 Movies by worldwidelie	Dec 10th, 1999 09:57:45 AM
I haven't seen the Green Mile. But what is all this crap about it being 'a great novel?' War and Peace is a great novel, Proust's A la recherche de temps perdu is a great novel, Lolita is a great novel, The Tin Drum is a great novel, Heart of Darkeness is a great novella... The Green Mile is a lame, cliched horror novel by an overpaid hack. And it isn't as good as Shawshank. The film may be v. good (although I just read a piece in the Daily Telegraph suggesting it was vastly overrated and cynically designed to get the oscars.) I am open minded. There have been some good films in 1999. Blair Witch was excellent - really ambitious and original. Whether you liked it or not, it's an awesome effort for that kind of money - and it is undeniably scary, especially if you possess an imagination. Arguments such as 'it's a films job to scare you' are fine - but what film of the last ten years has possessed the potential to scare anyone? Far better Blair Witch. Eyes Wide Shut was great, gorgeous looking, ambiguos - not perfect but NOT deeply flawed. The music is sumptuos, the acting is great and it is well worth thinking about. The Sixth Sense was vastly overrated, the twist ending was lamely obvious and it said NOTHING. Name one thing learned from the characters in that film. But the movie of the year - (I haven't seen American Beauty yet, not over here) is Fight Club. The ending was silly, sure, but God how I enjoyed it. Much better than the Sixth Sense, toddling along to its conclusion, all soft focus and sighs. But a good year - at least most of the films I saw were fun, and many were better. I'd give the Best Picture Oscar to Fight Club, and best director to the Blair Witch duo.
He's Not Pushing The Envelope? by mrbeaks	Dec 10th, 1999 10:35:05 AM
I'm sorry, but the Omaha Beach sequence was masterful, and, more importantly, unlike any battle scene before it. Was Spielberg, as someone said before (probably Peregrin,) merely painting from memory newsreel footage of the invasion? There is no doubt he used them as inspiration, but to go out and re-create the events in such vivid fashion is not as easy as it would appear. Normally, I wouldn't insult the intelligence of talk backers by making that statement, but the rabid "anti-spielberg" sentiment (Lazarus is excepted since his arguments rely not on half-truths, but an his own, informed beliefs) appears to be so unreasonable as to make such an observation necessary. Now, back to envelope pushing..... I am in complete agreement that, in terms of stretching the boundaries of narrative filmmaking, Fincher is one of the most important artists working today. As for Mendes, his AMERICAN BEAUTY was so accutely observant, I often felt that, were it not for Ball's broadly written screenplay (that betrayed his sitcom pedigree,) it was a throwback to 70's era filmmaking. Figgis? I liked him better when he was making nasty genre flicks on the order of INTERNAL AFFAIRS. Somehow, he got it into his head that he's an artist (no doubt emboldened by the rapturous critical response to the very good LEAVING LAS VEGAS,) and THE LOSS OF SEXUAL INNOCENCE was the result. In any event, I completely understand the importance of innovation, but I will also defend the right of those directors who choose instead to tell great stories with no pretensions to elevating the form. Robert Zemeckis, Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar, Mike Leigh..... these guys aren't trailblazers (at least, not anymore,) but their contributions are always worthy of attention, even when they misfire. And that, I could argue, elevates the form simply by offsetting the amount of garbage churned out by the studio to appease the masses. Finally, I'll close with this concession..... Spielberg has not been working at his peak since RAIDERS, and it's likely he never will again. Also, to further prove I'm not some Spielberg fanatic (even though I've littered the talkbacks with my defenses of him,) I am of the opinion that THE COLOR PURPLE, ALWAYS, HOOK, and THE LOST WORLD are pretty lousy.
Mr. Beaks you act as if... by Peregrin	Dec 10th, 1999 11:23:51 AM
...Spielberg himself were responsible for the technical skill employed during the Omaha Beach sequence. I'm not doubting that it's a fantastic sequence, but the only reason it is unlike any we have ever seen before is because they spent a lot more money than anyone ever has before and we have better technology than we've ever had before which you can hardly lay at the feet of Spielberg's genius. Restaging the D-Day invasion is nothing new in cinema [The Longest Day, among others], and Spielberg's take on it is totally derivative of those prior films, plus exactly like news reel footage. I agree that it show unbelievable technical mastery to recreate such a broad ranging scene from newsreel footage, but that mastery belongs to the myriad of technical designers, production designers, pyro-artists, special effects supervisors and the other people who actually brought it too life. The director, at least according to a bunch of posts written up above, is responsible for the "vision" of the film; not the technical execution. In this case the "vision" is already provided by numerous prior films and newsreel footage; all of which Spielberg copied almost exactly. From there its just a question of the money...
Loki's Philadelphia by cady	Dec 10th, 1999 11:32:40 AM
Loki - Yes, they should've retitled PHILADELPHIA "AIDS of Innocents." Let's start with the casting choices. Casting Tom Hanks as a gay person is an obvious attempt not to offend anybody. He's not only straight, he's very popular. I'm not saying only gay actors should play gays, but Hanks is such a manipulative choice. Does anyone believe for a moment that he's this gay character? Audiences don't feel threatened or disgusted relating to the Hanks' character because they know it's Hanks and he's only pretending. The same goes with the casting of Banderas as his gay lover. Except for a brief kiss between the two, there isn't much to indicate their gayness. Hanks could just as easily be a straight guy dying of AIDS. We're constantly told his gay but we're never shown his gay lifestyle. And the portrayal of his very supportive and loving family is totally unconvincing. The movie is meant to appeal to the widest audience possible and in doing so it becomes the very thing it's against. PHILADELPHIA is a homophobic film about homophobia. You walk out feeling good about yourself not because you have a greater understanding of humanity but because you have a greater understanding of what it would feel like to be Tom Hanks. As for your gay friend being moved to tears, there may be other reasons why? Did he have friends who died of AIDS? One can also respond to the movie on a basic level. Death, love, justice are universal themes that people can easily relate to.
I don't know why I bother by Hotspur	Dec 10th, 1999 11:50:02 AM
because this talk back is running longer than the Academy Awards! But I'll try anyway. I really don't fucking care if someone like Spielberg's movies or not. It's a matter of opinion and the discussion will go on for years and years. But to say that he doesn't have talent is totally bulls***. You guys know that envy is a deadly sin right? and that is what this is all about - envy. The guy is popular so some people get their kicks from putting him down. But even though a guy is popular he can still have the ability and talent. The thing goes the other way around too, of course, and I don't even wanna mention all the popular but talentless people working in Hollywood today. Both directors and actors. You figure it out for yourself. it's not that hard. But to call a popular man like Spielberg talentless is like if you said The Beatles (who probably was the most popular band ever) wasn't great musicians! It's totally bogus and we can only draw one conclusion from all this... Envy is a motherfucker!
Iron Giant is NOT a King Kong for the '90s by Zelig	Dec 10th, 1999 12:07:12 PM
It was actually a novel written in 1969 by Ted Hughes, and if you have ever read it, comes off nowhere near anything like King Kong.
agentCole by Hotspur	Dec 10th, 1999 12:07:15 PM
well, you totally missed the point. It's really no big mystery to say who is talented and who isn't in the art of film making. ok, maybe Spielberg isn't a good director. I don't know I'm not an actor and to judge someone a good director is to look at the performances of the actors. But what he is, is a great film maker. As I said before it's no big mystery to see who is that if you just have a little insight on the art of film making. And yes it is art!
Is it just me... by Zelig	Dec 10th, 1999 12:10:15 PM
Or is AgentCole rather biased in his opinions on film...
AgentCole you PRICK! by Peregrin	Dec 10th, 1999 12:13:29 PM
Springsteen rules! And the song "Streets Of Philedelphia" is the best part about the movie and the only part that actually deserved an Academy Award...
Hotspur I think you're right... by Peregrin	Dec 10th, 1999 12:16:13 PM
...if you have "just a little insight into the art of film-making" than you'll recognize that Spielberg is a great director. However, if you happen to have A LOT of insight, you'll recognize how over-rated he is and how many directors have been doing far superior work since the creation of the art-form!
New Column! by Larry Cucumber	Dec 10th, 1999 12:22:29 PM
Before I rant my new column is up at Spielberg-DreamWorks.com. But to the ignorant fool who had the post saying Gump and SPR sucked? They are both two perfect films. 99 is turning into an incredible year for film, I already have three aditions to my top twenty of all time. Matrix, Iron Giant and American Beauty. Not in that order. Bob the Tomato (Spielberg-DreamWorks.com)
Oh, Peregrin..... by mrbeaks	Dec 10th, 1999 12:22:46 PM
I'm not discounting the phenomenal work turned in by people like Kaminski, Kahn, Rydstrom and Dye, but they were all at the service of one man: the director. Does it make it easier for Spielberg that he had such brilliant people working for him? Obviously, yes, but they're only working for him because he proved his mastery of the craft with the films I've mentioned time and again on this talkback. Had he simply popped in THE LONGEST DAY (which looked nothing like SPR) and some newsreel footage, gathered his crew and said "that's what I want. I'll see you on the beach," I doubt they'd ever work for him again. Also, you say they spent a record amount of money to pull this off? That is a lie. SPR was budgeted at $70 million, a relatively modest sum compared to other large-scale productions. Again, your facts seem skewed to what you want to believe (that 100 foot drop you mentioned earlier in this talk back is a prime example, and I invite anyone who has a letterboxed copy of JP to take a look for themselves.)
You all are sellouts... by The Warrior	Dec 10th, 1999 12:27:58 PM
...and I'm a natural genius with nothing to say! D'oh! See you in the Hall!
cady, I know what you mean about Philadelphia, but I totally dis by dennis	Dec 10th, 1999 12:30:03 PM
The film was not about a gay man's love life. It was about his struggle with a terrible illness. There is still a lot of ignorance in American and prejudice is alive and well. I think there is no better way to portray the gay community than to show that they are just like the rest of us.
oh my God, AgentCole by Hotspur	Dec 10th, 1999 12:54:34 PM
how on earth can you put Tony Scott in the same league as Scorsese and Kubrick? "Beverly Hills Cop II", "Top Gun", "The Fan" are movies that any action minded director could have done just as good. The only film of his you can call great is "True Romance" and that is because it had a great script from a TALENTED screenwriter, Quentin Tarantino. And by the way this thing is a matter of opinion and... what was this talk back suppose to be about again?? Please Harry wake up, you can't sleep all day. Post some new cool news so we can start a new talk back. There must be some cool news outthere.
AgentCole's Makin' A List..... by mrbeaks	Dec 10th, 1999 12:55:45 PM
HOLLYWOOD, December 10 - The filmmaking industry ground to a halt today as AgentCole, renowned talk backer on Harry Knowles' Ain't It Cool News, delivered his list of "talented" and "talentless" directors working today. The news was good for helmers such as Martin Scorsese, David Lynch and Tony Scott, but others were not so fortunate. "Wow," uttered a stunned Steven Spielberg from his palcial estate in Los Angeles, where he was supervising, via top-of-the-line video-conferencing equipment, the work of cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, who reportedly directs all of the "wunderkind's" movies while the Dreamworks co-chief is busy driving his kids to school. "And here I thought, what with the approval of the Academy, I was doing such a good job. Looks like I was wrong." Volcanic, however, would be the appropriate description of James Cameron's response to the publishing of AgentCole's list. "Talentless," screamed an incensed Cameron, calling from his in-house screening room where he was viewing the Oscar-winning epic TITANIC as he does every morning, "that little f*er! I nearly drowned Ed Harris. I banged Linda Hamilton, Kathryn Bigelow, and a whole lotta other hot snatch! I've got more talent in my pencil d* than he has in his whole, worthless fanboy body! Who's the 'King of the World,' baby?" How this list is expected to alter the filmmaking landscape is uncertain, but one studio exec, who spoke under the condition of anonymity, allowed that, "well, the first thing we're going to do is give David Lynch THE BIBLE, which we hope will be ready for Christmas 2000. I don't know how we lost faith in him after DUNE, but thank Yahweh we have vigilant film students like AgentCole to keep us on the straight and narrow." On a separate note, George Lucas was unavailable for comment, but it is believed that the news came as no surprise to him, as he was already well aware of his incompetence.
Dennis... by cady	Dec 10th, 1999 12:56:48 PM
Yes, gays are like the rest of us in many ways, but they're also unique and the movie fails to deal with their uniqueness. If all they wanted to make was a movie about someone dying of a disease, why did they make him gay? Why did they pick AIDS as the disease? And is AIDS primarily a gay disease?
Whoa There Son! by Anton_Sirius	Dec 10th, 1999 01:00:59 PM
That's a whole 'nother argument. I personally don't think genetics is the prime 'cause' of homosexuality at all, at all. Think about it (and you danced around it yourself): how could a 'gay gene' pass itself along?
So what you're saying Mr. Beaks is... by Peregrin	Dec 10th, 1999 01:03:47 PM
...that Spielberg stood on the beach with them while they were filming? Big shit. You still have yet to explain to me where this genius is located other than the budget. There is fundamentally no difference between the opening of Saving Private Ryan and everything we've seen in newsreels and prior films than the money spent. That is an absolute fact. Shaky cam? We've seen it before. Guys getting killed? We've seen that before. People running on a beach? we've seen that before. What we haven't seen is that amount of money spent on this type of thing before. I don't understand how everyone has such a hard time following the fact that the storming of Omaha Beach actually happened! Spielberg didn't invent it; he didn't conceive it; he didn't bring anything more to it than other people have in the past except to make the battle look more real -- which is most certainly the domain of the technical people who worked on the film. Other than that, who knows why people work with Spielberg? But seeing as how work has a lot to do getting paid, and seeing as how Spielberg's got the bucks to pay well, I'd tend to believe it has an awful lot to do with that...As for the 100 foot drop in "Jurassic Park" -- I'll tell you exactly where it is. The T-Rex eats the goat, knocks down the fence and walks over to begin assaulting the Ford Explorers [which I might add is so miserably directed I might want to cry], he pushed the Ford Explorers around and knocks one over a hundred foot drop that was right where he just walked out from! Then in the scene that follows, more brilliant editing! When Goldbloom and Dern arrive on the scene, the direction of the Explorers is reversed. Then they miraculously appear at the bottom of the drop by the fallen Explorer, then they miraculously shoot back to the top! Watch it for yourself; it's so blatantly horrendous it's frightening. That's what you call BAD FILM-MAKING...
I haven't seen Green Mile yet.... by Matt0518	Dec 10th, 1999 01:38:43 PM
but I'll probably like it (even if it is a little long).------NOW to the serious matters at hand------Philadelphia was such a piece of tripe, this guy is supposed to be gay, but they never show him blowing another guy?????------Another thing, we don't talk about Shelley Long enough for my tastes. That woman is amazing!!!!
Agentcole - you're way off! by cady	Dec 10th, 1999 01:48:33 PM
Gay people are not meant to reproduce? Gay people don't have a right to adopt kids? Sexual orientation has little to do with one's ability to raise children. If it has such great impact, then why is this world, a world of kids raised by mostly straight people, such a fucked-up place? And if you didn't know it yet, there are many married people who are gay and their kids are no better or worse than others. And how do you explain bisexuals? Were they meant to reproduce only some the time? Do they only have half the right to raise children?
Iron Giant, American Beauty, The Insider...... by Rraggedy	Dec 10th, 1999 02:05:00 PM
All of which were excellent films. Russell Crowe in the Insider was amazing and certainly deserves to be nominated. He totally deserved the award he won earlier. In response to SS.... I stand behind the Iron Giant as the years best. It is true that best picture should be classified by a combination of acting, directing, story-telling, technical achievement etc... TIG has all of the above. Too many people dismiss animation and don't give it the recognition as an art form that it deserves (and I am not an animation junkie). If people realized just how hard it is to pull off a good animated film, they would certainly get more props. Not only do you have to deal with actors but then an animators take on that actor. There are soooo many thing to consider which is why many animated films have more than one director.... Also, as far as TIG not having an original story and being like King Kong.....I mean come on, only in the beings size is it like King Kong. If anything it is more like E.T., or Lassie. The basic story is that of a boy and his dog. American Beauty is NOT an original story. There is NO SUCH THING as an original story. American Beauty is really about the deconstruction of the myth of the American Family. Several films have many similarities to it....Ordinary People, Serial Mom (yes I said Serial Mom), and The Ice Storm. Nothing is original. What is original is the execution of the story, that is what makes it fabulous. Like I said earlier, all are great films but T.I.G. is the best for another reason.....it is a family film. It is much easier to write a rated R screenplay with no restraints in terms of where you can go and what you can do than it is to write a great rated G family film (not children's film....family film, a film that can be enjoyed by everyone). As a writer, there are restraints on you. It is almost like trying to speak with a muzzle.....only certain sounds get out. Writing is hard enough, writing for family must be the hardest thing on earth. If the other movies had the same restraints, they wouldn't be the same movie. Think about it..... How many good films came out this year as opposed to family films? Now I know what you are thinking....what about Toy Story 2? That was a great family film also but it didn't have the same heart or focus (like TS1)as the Iron Giant. There were just a lot of jokes and more an ensemble piece. Good, but not as good. With all that being said......so far, The Iron Giant is still the best film of the year. :-)
As high and mighty as we may be, we ARE just animals. by dennis	Dec 10th, 1999 02:07:39 PM
Homosexual behavior exists in the animal kingdom as well. Certain animals can switch their sex depending on the need to increase/control the population. I think that homosexuality is nature's way of preventing overcrowding. I do think there are probably genetic triggers, but they are coupled with environmental conditions. And cady, personally, I don't think gay people are any different that straight people, except when society deems they must be viewed that way. I don't think there's anything unique about being gay or straight, for that matter.
Well said mrbeaks by Smack	Dec 10th, 1999 02:11:12 PM
I love the fact that although this is a Green Mile talkback it's being dominated by the mertis (or lack of according to some people) of Spielberg, and whether Tom Hanks was convincing as a gay man in Philadelphia. Let me talk about Tom Hanks first. I, too, didn't think he was convincing as a gay man in Philadelphia. And I thought that movie was more about gay persecution than someone dying of AIDS. That's what the whole trial's about. Him being unlawfully fired from his law firm because he was gay. It even comes out in testimony. When Denzel Washington's character asks someone (Jason Robards I think) why someone else who also has AIDS continues to work at the firm, the person responded by saying he got it through a transfusion thereby implying Hanks was fired because he was gay. I thought Tom Hanks did a good job, but I would've rather seen Liam Neeson win best actor that year. As for Spielberg, we can continue to argue until we're blue in the face about whether he's talented or a hack. The point is I haven't really heard convincing arguments either way, so I believe it's personal preference. I think that he's the best director alive today. But I also recognize that he's made some sub-par films. That's what annoys me about agent cole. Obviously he thinks highly of David Lynch, yet he is unable to acknowledge that he's made some poor films. As a Twin Peaks fan I thought Fire Walk With Me was terrible, and practically unwatchable. I thought Lost Highway was interesting to watch, but a very forgettable movie. I personally like Dune, but I recognize that it has many flaws. I attribute that mainly to the challenge of condensing a book that was very rich in texture and characterization into a two hour film. I think any director (even Spielberg who's my favorite) would've failed much the way Lynch did. Plus, agent cole's hot n' not director list isn't very daring. You basically list guys that every film critic adores, and guys that have never been commercially successful as good, and guys that make blockbusters and academy award winning films as not being good. I'll give you credit, at least, for not including Fincher and the Wachowski brothers in your first category.
What's Wrong With Us by Rufus Roughcut	Dec 10th, 1999 02:22:57 PM
It's bad enough we live in a celebrity-obsessed world where the least important thing a celebrity does is more newsworthy than the most important thing a politician or world leader does. It's bad enough I have live in a world where "Extra" and "Access Hollywood" rates better than the network news. But I really hate the fact that we brand films Oscar winners before they're even released, let alone seen by anybody. Since September, "Green Mile" was annointed the Best Picture winner. Based on what? Industry buzz? That's what industry buzz is calculated to do: create excitement. Your expectations are built on the evil Hollywood publicity machine and we (myself included) fall for it. Harry, let's see "Green Mile" first, then decide where it fits in the year's films. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to a "George W. Bush for President" rally. Since the pundits say he's basically president already, I might as well get on the winning team.
Still no Dogma review, Harry? by soylentphil	Dec 10th, 1999 02:25:39 PM
Why'd you go silent on the topic of Dogma since its opening? Don't be afraid to tell us . . .
I don't care what anyone says. Dune is one of the best sci-fi m by dennis	Dec 10th, 1999 02:37:00 PM
The casting was perfect. The story, I think, is extremely entertaining, and understandable to an adult. As a kid it confused me, but I was interested in it enough to watch it several times until I understood it. Lynch was trying to tackle a story of mythic proportions and cram it into a movie. I'd have watched a five-hour version if they'd made it. The costumes and sets were beautiful, and most of the FX still hold up.
You Need Help, Peregrin by mrbeaks	Dec 10th, 1999 02:39:15 PM
Did you get fired from Dreamworks? Spielberg orchestrated that whole sequence. He says he didn't storyboard it, but he clearly knew what he wanted and captured it with the aid of some of the most talented professionals in the business, who work with him because he has made some of the greatest entertainments in the history of film. Did he just "stand on the beach?" No, he staged moments like the soldiers being shot underwater before they have a chance to drown, or the armless man searching for his lost appendage. And what of the German slowly slipping the knife into Mellish's chest? Horrifying, and all because of Spielberg's staging and direction of the actors, which is a great example of GOOD DIRECTING. Furthermore, since you've never answered this question, do you honestly believe JAWS, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK to be the work of a hack? If so, I'd love to hear your rationalization for that (and don't listen to the misguided poster above who said it was all due to Lucas' script. I suppose Lucas, along with Philip Kaufman, wrote in the editing for the truck/fist-fight scene, the brawl between Indy and the Nazi while a plane spins out of control on the runway, etc. Why do I even try?)
Length Of Films by Sakla	Dec 10th, 1999 02:39:41 PM
I don't have a problem with a film being long, but if at anytime I look at my watch to see how long the film has been running the filmakers have FAILED to keep my attention. You can say it needs to be edited or you can say the pace was slow...whatever. But something is wrong there. PLEASE NOTE: Haven't seen GREEN MILE. Looking forward to it. I did not have this problem with SHAWSHANK but did on other films where Harry makes his favorite "too many notes" AMADUES quote.
Longest Talk Back Ever? by mrbeaks	Dec 10th, 1999 02:46:32 PM
And barely a quarter of it is on topic. Just wait until we all see THE GREEN MILE for ourselves.
2 Reviews in SF papers by Pomona88	Dec 10th, 1999 03:06:28 PM
For reviews of "The Green Mile" in the 2 major SF newspapers, click on www.sfgate.com/eguide/movies/p ages/newflicks. General concensus: overly long hokum.
Reviews coming in jive with what the SF Chronicle said: too long by dennis	Dec 10th, 1999 03:27:43 PM
They all say the performances are great, but it doesn't beat Shawshank. The tough reviewer at Mr.Showbiz.com (they're about as hard on films as Entertainment Weekly is) echoed the sentiments of other reviewers. I'm think I'm going to wait until some friends see it before I check it out.
Prejudice by cady	Dec 10th, 1999 03:27:44 PM
Here's what I think happened during the making of PHILADELPHIA. The filmmakers started out with noble intentions. Hey, let's make a movie about compassion. Let's make the main character a gay person. AIDS is hot. Let's give him AIDS. Then the studio stepped in. Well, ok, but let's not make him too gay. No blow jobs. And we have to attract Middle America. We can't hire an unknown. Let's get Tom Hanks. He's not gay and everyone likes him. They won't be grossed out because they'll know he's not really a faggot. How about his lover? Oh yeah, that Banderas guy. He's an up-and-coming sex symbol. Faggots love him. But we're missing something here. We have to attract niggers, too. Make the lawyer black. That's it. Feels good. Feels really good. We'll make money, win Oscars, and no one can accuse us of being prejudiced.
cady, I know where you're coming from, but once again I disagree by dennis	Dec 10th, 1999 03:29:51 PM
The tie between Denzel's black lawyer and his gay client is that HE WAS PREJUDICED AGAINST GAYS, but he's black, so he should understand it better than anyone. I thought it was making an excellent point and both men are EXTREMELY talented.
I also pray for the day when people are viewed as actors, and no by dennis	Dec 10th, 1999 03:31:00 PM
That's all.
Talk about prejudice... by The Warrior	Dec 10th, 1999 03:32:09 PM
Cady's caricature of how studio execs reason and talk is about as far-fetched and clueless as anything ever posted on the Internet, including alien autopsies. See you in the Hall.
One last thing... by Portnoy	Dec 10th, 1999 03:56:47 PM
Raiders was conceived by Lucas and Spielberg in Hawaii on vacation while they were celebrating the successes of Star Wars and Close Encounters. They both worked on it. It's called collaboration. Saying Spielberg isn't responsible for the opening scene in SPR is stupid. Are you trying to say that any good thing in a Spielberg film MUST be someone else's fault because God knows it couldn't be Spielberg? That really makes a lot of sense. Sooner or later you'll have to realize that the studios, the Oscars, the public, the American Film Institute, and most critics think Spielberg is a great filmmaker. But you know, I suppose we're all wrong. It's just some big coincidence that Spielberg made any good movies. I mean since people like Peregrin and AgentCole say so, I guess they're right. Peregrin sounds like a key grip from Jaws who never got his last paycheck and knows that his work was TOTALLY overlooked by EVERYONE. And I can't even believe Agent Cole is trotting out a one trick pony like Lynch. How many people even SAW Lynch's latest movie much less like it? If you want to read more of my haphazard rambling go to http://members.xoom.com/table3 0
Iron Giant by Larry Cucumber	Dec 10th, 1999 04:02:38 PM
Best film of the year. Nuff said. Behind American Beauty and Matrix. Oh yeah, and I thought Spiel was an incredible filmmmaker until I read these talkbacks and decided I must have been drunk or something every time I've seen all his films. What are you people on? Bob the Tomato (Spielberg-DreamWorks.com)
I'll Go See It by darren	Dec 10th, 1999 04:13:52 PM
Green Mile is out today, so I'll probably go see it along with Deuce Bigalow back to back. As Roger Ebert says, "The Shawshank Redemption is a modern day classic." So if that's anything to go by, this one should be a winner.
What's in a name... by The Warrior	Dec 10th, 1999 05:00:15 PM
I've heard that the works of Shakespeare weren't written by Shakespeare, but by some other bloke who was also named Shakespeare. You know what? No one cares. You all are sell-outs, but I'd fuck you anyway. Accept no substitutes. The Warrior is The Warrior is The Warrior. Bang bang. See you in the Hall.
Agent Cole by coop	Dec 10th, 1999 05:01:07 PM
I wasn't going to join in on this director debate because this talk back is so long and the odds are that no one will read this but I happen to agree with Agent Cole (for the most part). Maybe I'm a bit prejediced because we are both Twin Peaks characters but the fact is Speilberg is basically just an extension of David Lean. Schindlers List is a film that is enthralling, horrifying and beatiful all at the same time but if you watched Lawrence of Arabia without knowing who directed it, you'd swear it was Spielberg. I think he does a great job sometimes at copying a style but he has no originality to the look of his own films. If you watch the films of Kubrick, Lynch, Burton, Fincher, Gilliam etc... you know who directed them, you may not like them, but you know. The only reason you'd know Spielberg directed a film is because David Lean is dead.
JJ Gittes... by dennis	Dec 10th, 1999 05:08:56 PM
I expect a review to follow! I hope you enjoy it more the 2nd go round.
Back To What We Laughingly Refer To As 'The Topic' by Anton_Sirius	Dec 10th, 1999 05:09:10 PM
Agent Cole- I never said homosexuality was 'a choice'. But nor do I believe that its roots are strictly in our DNA. Must everything reduce to these simplistic, Aristotlian, either-or arguments? Speilberg, no Kubrick. Hanks, no Cruise. There are a million billion gazillion other possibilities. As for Lynch, Blue Velvet is obviously his worst film. Fire Walk With Me was breath-taking, and is still the most emotinally accurate portrayal of child abuse I've ever seen on screen. Lost Highway wasn't terribly deep, but it was a blast. Blue Velvet, though, was an uneasy compromise between the 'Elephant Man/Straight Story' side of Lynch and his 'Eraserhead' side, and to me the two just didn't get along. Moments of brilliance (like Hopper's entire performance- Stockwell's too) but also a lot of stuff that just sat there. It felt like Lynch was hamstrung by the traditional narrative structure or something.
Wow. by Anton_Sirius	Dec 10th, 1999 05:18:30 PM
"The only reason you'd know Spielberg directed a film is because David Lean is dead." Oh my. Oh me oh my. That is perhaps the nastiest anti-Spielberg burn I've ever heard. And like all the best insults, not without a grain of truth. Anyway, not that it can win the ShinyBaldGuy, but the best film released to date in North America this year is still Princess Mononoke. Gorgeous and epic in the very best sense, with the best score of the year too (buy it even if you haven't seen the movie, it's so beautiful. I play it for people and they want to see the movie JUST BASED ON THE SCORE. Now that's some powerful music.)
SEE NICK NOLTE NUDE!!! by mrbeaks	Dec 10th, 1999 05:26:06 PM
There's only one mental midget on this board, and you're making it abundantly clear who it is. And to the guy who came up with the Spielberg/Lean quote..... that ranks right up there with Olivier's slam of Dustin Hoffman.
dang by Niiiice	Dec 10th, 1999 05:52:05 PM
So this is what I get for trying to study for finals...I missed out on a Spielberg debate, a raging morality issue on homosexuality, a talkback identity crisis, and somewhere in the mix, I think I even read that someone thinks the Entertainment Weekly reviewer does a good job (?????). I don't feel like wading through the pool of posts that preceded me, but I still want to jump into the discussion, so pardon me while I proceed to make largely uninformed and inflammatory comments as the talkback progresses.
This is a rather bold talkback, or my personal thoughts about Ph by Niiiice	Dec 10th, 1999 06:09:53 PM
Every movie with a straight couple does not feature a sex scene, so I've no idea why some of you are livid over the fact that there were no blowjobs given in Philadelphia. I'm glad people are giving their true opinions instead of trying to play it PC, I wonder if any of these posts will be deleted for their political content. My personal interpretation was that Philadelphia was about discrimination, the reason they chose the character to be gay was because thats the most prevalent form of discrimination. The fact that someone is gay doesn't necessarily prevent them from being a capable parent, and it doesn't mean the children will grow up to be gay. That being said, homosexuality is inarguably a biological dead end, in the sense that it produces no children. The basic drive of any organism is to ensure the survival of its individual gene pattern. In an evolutionary sense, organisms born with adaptive mutations live to pass their genes on, while organisms with maladaptive mutations die out. I don't think anyone can argue that homosexuality isn't the most maladaptive mutation of all. However, humans are highly social animals, and such biological drives are not as important to our survival. Most evidence says that this condition is a result of heredity (roughly 52% of gay men who had a twin had a gay twin). Just a little info.
And another thing.... by Portnoy	Dec 10th, 1999 06:15:18 PM
When are we going to talk about the greatest director of all time. I am talking of course about Yahoo Serious. Who could forget his Young Einstein or the even more obscure but just as brilliant Reckless Kelly? Now THAT man is a genius. Did you see that scene in Young Einstein where Yahoo launches himself in the catapult? Now THAT'S pushing the envelope my friends. Who else would dare do such a thing. Not Lynch, Not Spielberg, NO Only Mr Serious would have the balls (and the hair) to launch himself in a catapult. I think this effectively ends the debate on best director. :)
nothing else to talk back about by Lazarus Long	Dec 10th, 1999 07:38:59 PM
Well, it appears to be a bit of a stalemate, but I'll try anyway: Since when is the AFI the fucking guardian of what and who is good? Just because they feel sorry for people and give them Lifetime Achievement Awards to make up for past injustices (see O. Welles) doesn't mean they know which way is up. Their list of the top 100 is a travesty, and how Citizen Kane managed to still triumph at #1 amazes me (probably put there to prevent people like me from assassinating everyone at the AFI). I won't bother to list the glaring omisions or terrible ranking preferences, but this all leads to one question: Does the fact that Spielberg is the most represented director make him the best director? Is there a difference between quality of films and quality of direction? Well, yes, if you notice that there are seperate Oscars for Picture and Director. Can a less-than-brilliant director continually turn out high-quality films? Yes. Example (besides Spielberg) is Michael Curtiz, director of countless Hollywood gems such as Casablanca, Captain Blood, Adventures of Robin Hood, Angels With Dirty Faces, Mildred Pierce. I challenge you to explain, with more than a movielover's knowledge of Film Technique and Aesthetic, what makes Curtiz a great director. He is the exact opposite of an auteur. I think I'm rambling here, so I'll sum up. We go to Spielberg films because we expect a certain quality of subject matter, entertainment, casting, effects, technical prowess, etc. But we go to Kubrick films, Scorsese, Welles, Hitchcock simply because of the artistic technique that is undeniably theirs in every shot of the film. It's almost irrelevant what the film is about. In the case of Welles, technical prowess was rarely evident in his later, lower-budgeted films. Hitchcock sometimes used lesser known casts. Scorsese has often used what might appear as unappealing subject matter (Kundun, After Hours, King of Comedy) But they do something worth seeing every time. Now if you take all those things away from Spielberg (casting, tech, effects, etc.), what is left? I would really like to see him strip down and do a really small film without all the fireworks. Lucas can do it: American Graffiti and THX-1138 are both small films that speak volumes of how talented Lucas really is at directing. I don't think Spielberg has what it takes to do something like that. Any arguments to the contrary?
Baretta by Niiiice	Dec 10th, 1999 07:51:25 PM
"every time you review a movie it turns into a big, fat, sweaty, one man ejaculathon".... Hmmm, so you're saying you'd rather have multiple-male ejaculations? You're sick dude.
The End by The Sweeney	Dec 10th, 1999 09:51:30 PM
I just read all those TalkBacks.It took me about three weeks.Go home!There's nothing more to see here!
Titanic was longer but they bought it... by 0007	Dec 10th, 1999 10:24:03 PM
Why is it that hardly ANY critics or suits said: "Ohh, Titanic is sooo long!"? Instead, people showed up in droves time and time again. And that movie was longer than The Green Mile by a freakin' 20 minutes! What is the deal?!!! This movie packs 10 times the wallop of Titanic, but all you hear in every review is:"You better have an iron-butt to get through this Mayberry sap!" What??!! Can we say: "People uncomfortable with their emotions???"
prison flicks by 60091	Dec 10th, 1999 10:37:14 PM
Goddammit I hate prison flicks. I refused to see Shawshank because it is a prison movie. I can't be manipulated into feeling anything but utter contempt for any prison movie character. I refuse to see this movie. Thank you Harry for mentioning that this is a prison flick. This is one to avoid.
The Bus by nug	Dec 10th, 1999 11:24:02 PM
I suppose I'm to be the first Talkbacker who writes in after actually seeing The Green Mile in its regular release. All the rest of you are too busy debating whether a gay clone of the Iron Giant would have kicked ass on Omaha Beach in 1999. Now, I have to say that I did really like this movie. It definitely doesn't have the scope or the depth of Shawshank, though - sorry, but I can't help compare the two films: Shawshank is emminently rewatchable, while I think The Green Mile, though recommended, will not be. In today's sad world, I have been forced to break up movies into two categories - those I will budget to buy on DVD, and those I won't. The Green Mile, while again a very good movie, for me will unfortunately fall into the latter category because of what boils down to one deleted scene. When it was first announced that they were making the film, I was elated, and later found every casting choice ideal. Moreover, I walked away simply amazed at how Darabont seemed to have recreated the prison and all those related to it as if he had made a direct sketch of my imagination. Even so, two things and two things alone made me love the serials, and they were (1), the final sentence, and (2), the wife's bus scene. Though that last line remained intact, somehow I knew they would leave out the bus. And so they did. Why does one scene matter so much? Because it was the most "real" part of the entire story, despite the presence of Coffey's ghost. Not only was it the most emotional scene in the book, but it was there for a reason - to explify the heart of Paul's so-called punishment, to provide a real examply of Paul's pain, and it was the hammer that really drove in that last line for me. But they skipped over it. God, I wanted to see how Hanks would have pulled off that scene. Harry, someone, PLEASE - explain to me why book-to-film translations so often leave out the very parts that made the books so endearing in the first place.
Are we stuck in old news hell? by All Thumbs	Dec 10th, 1999 11:31:02 PM
Just wondering. This Talk Back has been fun (but took forever) to read. I don't think I could post anything that hasn't already been said, though I give the most creative awards to The Warrior for his prison comment on Hallenback and to GunRay for his use of the dictionary to defile a moron.*Hey, I was flipping through a magazine and there was an ad with who I thought was Jim Carrey and, assuming it was a Man in the Moon ad, I paused a second to look at Jim and realized it was Andy and the ad was for that biography his friend wrote. It creeped me out a bit.*Is there some official rule about how long a Talk Back has to stay on subject before the masses turn to a new subject because the well is getting dry here...
Bloated and predictable by Caligari	Dec 11th, 1999 12:25:55 AM
Let me start off by saying I loved the "Shawshank Redemption." After "Braveheart" and "Schlinder's List," I'd have to say it's my third favorite movie of the '90s. I really, really wanted to love the "Green Mile." In fact, it was my number one "must see" film for the holidays. Boy was I disappointed. I think when people cheer and support this movie, what they're cheering about is the last 45 minutes of the movie. The audience leaves the movie on a high note and the forget the dull two hours they had to sit through. Now I love Darabont, I have the "Shanshank Redemption" script sitting right next to my computer. I read it at least weekly. The problem with the "Green Mile," is that, as a three hour movie its fair/good, but as a two hour movie it would have been awesome. The film is too long and over indulgent. Darabont simply fell in love with his scenes to the point of excess. While the mouse scenes are integral, not all of the scenes are needed. Bloated scenes could be cut. For example: Hanks drugging the convict's coca-cola scene: Hanks drugs the coffee, walks to the desk, the convict asks for the drink, Hanks makes some small banter, then walks to the convicts cell, the convinct drinks the soda, gags and finally is knocked out. The only point of this scene is to knock him out, so the guards can smuggle Coffee out of prison. Why dragg out the scene? The movie is rife with bloated scenes like this one. It became frustrating, because I wanted the movie to be about the relationship between Hanks and Coffey. Unfortunately, I had to wait two hours plus before the relationship really began. Another problem was predictability. While the story had tender, heart-felt moments (yes I did cry like a girly-man at the end, who wouldn't), Darabont never played with our expectations. For example, (SPOILER*) once the warden's wife was diagnosed with the brain tumor, I knew that Coffey eventually would heal her. And sure enough an hour later, Coffey does heal her. Now, it was a nice moment, but Darabont simply met my expectations. He didn't spin or twist/turn the scene in an interesting way. This is why the film's not memorable, it's simply a series of predictable, bloated scenes. "Shankshank Redemption," on the other hand, had wonderful sublime moments that haunted you, scenes you didn't expect (that ending narration as Red decides against suicide and heads out to find Andy... wonderful). Do I discount Darabont entirely? Not on your life! I can't wait for his next film. He simply hit the infamous "sophmore slump." But I'm sure he'll be back. Hopefully, he'll have learned his lesson and give us a great third movie.
The Green Mile by Maatkare	Dec 11th, 1999 01:56:10 AM
I saw The Green Mile at a DGA screening last week, and while it's a very well made film, I never fell under its spell as completely as Harry did. For one thing, I felt EVERY ONE of the 180 minutes. I twitched. I crossed and recrossed my legs. I checked my watch. It should have been called the LONG Green Mile. Did I mention it was long? Seriously, I've seen several quite long films recently: The Insider is well over 2 1/2 hours, and I just got back from seeing "The Hurricane," which was also 2 1/2, and both held me completely. (Hurricane is also set largely in prison, by the way, and concerns an unjustly imprisoned black man--Denzel Washington is fabulous) But for whatever reason I just couldn't fall as completely into the world of the Green Mile, and I tried. The acting is good, the story intriguing. To be honest, when Fred & Ginger danced across the screen, I seriously wished I'd stayed home & watched it instead. I was not familiar with the book, so while I found Cofey interesting, he was too much E.T. mixed with Lenny from of Mice & Men. And the old man bookends just screamed Private Ryan. To me, there's a problem when a movie reminds you too much of one better movie, let alone four. Did I mention it was long? --SimFar
Oscar's calling... by BarbaRick	Dec 11th, 1999 02:06:42 AM
I came into this picture almost not wanting to like it. I felt it was made to win awards, and that's an insincere reason to make a movie. But that prejudice got shot to hell, and I can't even pinpoint the second it happened. Maybe it was when Doug Hutchison introduced the "Dead man walking." He did such a knock-out job, I'm gonna have to remind myself that he ISN'T Percy should I ever chance upon him in person, or else I might deck him like Brutal. And Michael Jeter gave a fine performance as well, as did Wild Bill. Everyone was great, but these guys stand out the most, as well as Michael Clarke Duncan. You never get the feeling that he's actually a really articulate man, he melts into John Coffey so well. I mean, I wish Fight Club would at least get nominated for Best Picture, but I'm not going to begrudge The Green Mile its win. If it had sucked, or was just plain undeserving (SinL, anyone?), then I'd be angrier than holy hell, but this is a film that, even if you don't think it's the best of the year (I'm in that camp), you can at least see where the people who do feel it is are coming from. Early call: Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, Dramatic Score, Editing. Duncan's gonna have a devil of a time taking Supporting Actor from Haley Joel Osment, although if ever there's a time we'll have a tie in a category, this might be it.
Maybe somebody drugged my Coke by Ruggles	Dec 11th, 1999 03:04:24 AM
Saw The Green Mile today. I can't fault the acting, and I didn't even feel the length (though I agree with Caligari that some scenes, such as the drugging of Wild Bill's soda, are ridiculously drawn out). The story, however, is nonsense. How any sentient being over the age of twelve can swallow this claptrap is beyond me. Note to Anton Sirius: I agree that Spencer Tracy's back-to-back Oscars were for two of his lesser performances, but his overall career is phenomenal. Of all the classic movie stars, Tracy gave the most realistic, human-scaled performances. See Fury, Bad Day at Black Rock, the original Father of the Bride and any of his Hepburn collaborations for proof. That goes for you fan-boys, too. Believe it or not, Spielberg didn't invent the motion picture. Lots of good ones were made pre-1970s. Some of them were even in color.
Just because it's perfect... by Darth Brian	Dec 11th, 1999 10:38:12 AM
doesn't make it the best movie of the year. I just saw The Green Mile last night and it was perfect. But I'm with Harry, the most perfect movie of the year was Toy Story 2. But as I mentioned in my header, perfection doesn't equal best movie. In my opinion, the best movie of the year is The Phantom Menace ( seriously ), followed closely by The Matrix. Here, though, is where things get tricky. I'll probably think about this more later, but for right now, I'd have to put Toy Story 2 at number 3, then The Green Mile and lastly The Sixth Sense to round out my top 5. And lastly...I'd like to say that, Harry, I really loved your review...except, you may have used too many... ellipses... in it. later guys.
The Green Mile...Awesome by Jangles	Dec 11th, 1999 11:07:49 AM
I saw this movie yesterday. All three screens were practically sold out for the 10:15 a.m. show. It was everything it could be. Wonderful character portrayals by all cast, and never a moment of boredom. The story was wonderfully told and it is nice to know that Mr. King can produce works such as Green Mile and Shawshank with real human interest and plausibility without all of the supernatural gore and beyond belief antics that some of his other works portray. Kudos for the whole group and ensemble of cast. Nothing could have been left out and still have been the same story. It is PERFECT just the way it is. I'm going back today with my 13-year-old son. He will really enjoy the whole concept. He enjoys Shawshank for the story it is and has a different kind of respect for Mr. King than before. He and I are both avid Stephen King fans and enjoyed The Stand the best of his other style, but have a whole new outlook and, again, respect, for the type of story he has told with The Green Mile.
Hey! by Anton_Sirius	Dec 11th, 1999 01:02:05 PM
What's with all these Green Mile reviews? I thought we were talking about... oh, right. Never mind. Carry on.
People who read the book seem to love it... by Darth Siskel	Dec 11th, 1999 01:21:15 PM
I didn't read the book so I judge it only as a movie. A few scenes were a bit too dragged out, but not enough to ruin the movie. The movie was really really good, except for the ending. I just didn't get it. What the hell does "They were killed by their love" mean, or "Everyday , all over the world this is happening" or whatever Coffey said. I don't get it.
Thoughts on the Green Mile by Austin Nico	Dec 11th, 1999 07:15:31 PM
1) In rural Louisiana, during the 30's, a large black man, accused of raping and killing two blond white girls, hunted by an all white mob with guns, shovels, and dogs, would have been lynched; hung, burned, his dick cut off, and stuffed in his mouth. Also every person in the mob would have ritually stabbed him after his death and in many instances taken a piece of the deceased body home as memorabilia. That's the way it would have gone down because that's the way actually it did. But we wouldn't have a movie then huh? 2) Louisiana death row guards being nice? 3) The use of a sexual/urinary dysfunction as an illness to be cured is definitely a touchy point and John's helping him get that fixed a racially and sexually touchy subject. Sex and black people has it's own unique and deep sort of racism, heavily dependent on racist notions of bestiality; rape, large black phallus savagely deflowering white magnolias. That racism reality was never directly addressed but definitely was used as an emotive device. Big Beefy John kissing a prone white woman. Men with guns standing around. That's a lot of tension. Felt by me and the black people behind me who said
Review by Austin Nico	Dec 11th, 1999 07:28:40 PM
I liked the movie. I cried. I loved John. I hated Percy and Billy. I'd recommend it.
Why Hasn't Harry Reviewed 'Go'? by bababooey	Dec 11th, 1999 09:46:29 PM
Doug Liman's 'Go' is one of the year's best movies and Harry has yet to even acknowledge it. I know the whole structure is a rip-off of 'Pulp Fiction', but everything gets ripped off at some point or another. There have been so many bad teen films the last few years, it was refreshing to see a film that would challenge a teenage audience. This movie is just flat out ENTERTAINING. And that is why we go to the movies, to be entertained. (P.S. Sarah Polley kicks major ass!)
Caligari by woemcats	Dec 12th, 1999 02:18:01 AM
I just wanted to say- if you didn't know Coffey had healing powers, how could you predict that he'd heal the wife? His powers were never given away in any trailers or anything, so aside from knowing too much about the movie going in, I don't see how you could guess. Reminds me of the people who saw Sixth Sense later- they had heard there was a surprise, so they spent to long looking for it and figured it out- you could say it was predictable. But if you stopped the film halfway through at the opening night show I went to and asked if anyone could guess the ending, NO ONE would have known "the spoiler."
Harry didn't like GO by AshFett	Dec 12th, 1999 04:16:23 AM
He mentioned it once... how he didn't like GO at all. Too bad. It's one of my favorites of the year (along a ton of others like American Beauty, Fight Club, Sixth Sense, Election, Matrix... what a good year). I liked Green Mile, but I LOVED Go and could watch it a million times... (and already have watched it a ton).
The Green Mile-gets an A- from me by darren	Dec 12th, 1999 01:14:56 PM
Just saw "The Green Mile" and loved it. I'm not gonna say much today, but I feel this film (like "The Shawshank Redemption"} is about friendship and the love humans can have for each other despite how different they are. Don't puke, when this kind of subject matter is handled correctly it can be very touching! Later.
Why Are the Critics Complaining About the Length? by bababooey	Dec 12th, 1999 02:33:03 PM
Who cares if it's three hours? It's three of the best hours you will spend in a movie theater this year. I'm so sick of hearing all these critics whining( esp. Leonard Maltin). They have the best job in the world and they can't sit on their ass for three hours without having a hissy fit. Mabye it's just a backlash from all of the advance hype, who knows? Mabye they would rather watch 'Deuce Bigalow' or 'Lost & Found' instead. Those movies are only about half the length of 'The Green Mile.'
HARRY START A NEW PAGE HERE!!! by Lazarus Long	Dec 12th, 1999 03:41:22 PM
I now that many have seen the film we have much more to talk about! Please reset this, or post your further musings on the Green Mile "Phenomenon". Anyway, saw the film yesterday, and granted I was going in with a bit of a negative vibe, but the first half of the film was winning me over. However, I think the blatant Christian preaching and idiotically obvious metaphor was overused, to say the least (okay, his initials are J.C....okay, the lyrics Fred Astaire is singing, okay the projector light halo, okay OKAY OKAY!!!). Secondly, and I don't think anyone can really refute this point, the Black and White caricatures of good and evil are a bit juvenile. In the real world, and in the real film world, characters are all shades of grey. When you make some characters 100% good, and the "bad" ones 100% evil, it's really easy to get emotion out of people, and that's what cheap manipulation is. Because when the bad guys "get theirs" in a film like this, you hear the Lynch Mob mentality of an American film audience in all its glory, with hoots, cheers, and clapping. That is so cheap. Great writers are able to flesh out characters and show them warts and all, which make us love them anyway. Just off the top of my head, I'm going to reference another recent "big" film, The English Patient. Like it or not, the main characters were not perfect. Many of Ralph Fiennes' character's personality traits were less-than-admirable. But you still come to feel for his passion, his dilemma, and his loss. I feel the Shawshank Redeption was much more successful, and perhaps it did aim a little lower. But there is NOTHING in the Green Mile that equals Tim Robbins playing the Opera for the inmates (something Spielberg lifted for SPR), or the beautiful ending which stopped exactly at the right time, and not predictably showing us the tearful reunion. Green Mile's ending is so convoluted and drawn out, I felt Darabont was grabbing at straws to find some barber-shop psychology/spiritual words of wisdom. (Spoiler here) Do we have to see him going to his friend's funeral, looking at the casket, blah blah blah. ENOUGH ALREADY! This almost as bad as the ending of Schindler's List. And what the fuck does "We all have our own Green Mile" mean anyway? We all have our own long journey in life? Gee, how illuminating. Or we all have sins that need to be paid for? It means nothing. Darabont has talent, but hopefully on his next five year vacation he'll come back with restraint, humility, something to actually say, and Jesus Christ, a shorter film.
I haven't seen this yet but..... by Munku	Dec 12th, 1999 09:36:37 PM
I'm betting it will be good because of the simple fact that...FRANK DARABONT IS A GENIUS!!!! Sorry, I just had to get that out. THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION is one of my favorite movies of all time, and if people say that THE GREEN MILE is better, then it must be a true work of art.
Er...Not great... by Eli Cross	Dec 13th, 1999 12:05:12 AM
I just saw The Green Mile. I also read the book. I think it took just a little less time to read the book than to see the film. Roger Ebert said that no good film is too long and no bad film is too short. Is this a good film? Well, it ain't bad. It's just so dang careful. It's the most calculated piece of mainstream film making since SW:Episode One. It's excruciatingly well made and earnestly acted that one feels almost un-American to dislike it. I did like the EXACT reproduction of scenarios and dialogues from the book. When I say EXACT, I mean it is frightening how some sequences are lifted whole cloth from King's book. It isn't a movie; it's the film of the book. Like the movie, you'll love the book. Love the book; er, it's real accurate... Sorry, I really liked the book and was left utterly, utterly cold by the film. You won't find a bigger fan of Hanks or Shawshank but I felt this film is lacking a spontaneous nerve or love of film making. It seems like an exercise to see how accurate a book-to-film adaptation could be. Grade: C+.
The Problem with The Green Mile by Benjammn	Dec 13th, 1999 12:08:17 AM
I can't believe that I would be the first to mention, with all the keen movie eyes out there, not one noticed the one major problem with The Green Mile???? Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed this film. I loved the actors. Flawless cast. Great direction... But am I the only one that noticed the boom mike lowering in front of the camera? it happend 2 or 3 times. And one time it was painfully obvious... Next time you see this film, watch the scene with the Old man and the cafeteria worker that gives him the toast. Just tell me I'm not crazy!!!!
Boom mike by woemcats	Dec 13th, 1999 08:11:57 AM
If the book mike came into the shot, the theater you were at was showing the film at the wrong aspect ratio.
My thoughts, some spoilers by erendis	Dec 13th, 1999 09:08:31 AM
I saw this movie on Friday when it came out, during the first evening show in Boston. Perhaps it was the good audience, but this movie really grabbed me. There aren't too many movies out there that have been able to completely absorb me into their characters and the story. This wasn't Tom Hanks.. it was paul Edgecomb, you know? It grabbed the audience too. We squirmed at Paul's painful infection, laughed at the all night "celebration" with his wife when he was healed, screamed with horror when Percy squished Mr. Jingles. I was involved in this movie, and I didn;t realize it until it was too late to back away. I felt nauseous during Delacroix's execution, not just because of the graphic nature, but because of Percy's inhumanity. When he tells Del that Mouseville doesn't exist, well... I wanted someone to grab him by the throat and strangle him. When John Coffey takes Paul's hand and shows him what he knows about Wild Bill, my insides screamed "Please please no more, please I don't want to see anymore." And I was glad bill was dead. I felt the blood lust from the anger of that knowledge. The amount of inhumanity in this film was more than I could bear, and by John's execution, I wasn't simply crying, I was sobbing. It was all I could do to keep from audibly wailing. I am not usually a movie crier, only one movie has made me cry every time I see it, and that's Braveheart, when he yells his famous death cry. It broke my heart. But this movie, It tore at my heart little by little. It tore when Percy was inhumane, tore a bit more at delacroix's death, mended a bit in between, tore a bit more at john's revelation to paul, and the whole ending before they switch back to the nursing home was pulling my heart out in front of my face, throwing it on the floor and stomping on it. I was not the only one sniffling and sobbing in the theatre that night, and it wasn't just the women either. The Green Mile was a great movie, but I dont think it will have much repeat business. I for one will not be tempted to buy it on DVD or video, not even to rent it. I don't think I could bear the sorrow again.
That final 10th of a mile... (SPOILER HERE) by lycanthrope	Dec 13th, 1999 10:44:53 AM
Harry and the rest... First of all, I loved this movie - had me cryin' like a baby... But it seems that the ending is different than King's book - I think Darabont made Paul's longevity more of a curse (punishment) than King did - I seem to remember King's book being a bit more uplifting... comments?
Good movie, but... (spoilers) by r_dimitri22	Dec 13th, 1999 10:54:32 AM
I liked the performances, and it was very good storytelling. However, there some aspects of the film that kept it from the greatness category for me (spoilers ahead). First of all, it was too transparent. I probably had too much information prior to seeing it, but I think that I would still have anticipated some of the plot points. (Old and bushy Mr. Jingles was a pleasant surprise, though. I had found the frame story annoying, but that turn of events made it worthwhile and necessary for me.) Second, it was a very human piece, but the supernatural elements diminished the resonance for me. Realism is the primary reason I much prefer The Shawshank Redemption. Don't get me wrong: I can accept the supernatural and the use of the non-subtle Christ allegory. It just makes it more difficult for me to make a connection. At the end of Shawshank, I felt immensely satisfied and was surprised by the turn of events. I felt that the movie had earned its resolution. At the end of The Green Mile (with the exception of aforementioned fate of Edgecomb and Mr. Jingle), my feelings were more along the lines of: "There's really no other way that it could have ended." jOHN cOFFEY is equivalent to Christ, so he must meet the same fate. I think it's very sad that Coffey must bear this burden, but if he is who Darabont/King would have us believe, then isn't his death the way that the story must go? It's a tragedy, but it is one that is a little too familiar and ingrained in our culture for me to weep over. Third, I was somewhat uncomfortable with John Coffey dispensing justice for Percy and Wild Bill. It did not seem to fit with his gentle character, and I had to question if Christ would have done the same thing. (Perhaps there is more elaboration on his motivation and what actually happened in the book. Was Percy acting on Coffey's directive, or was Percy so overwhelmed with disgust about what Wild Bill had done that he was compelled to shoot him?) Is the intended message that some people are pure evil and completely unredeemable? Why couldn't Wild Bill meet his fate in the chair? I can accept the concept of evil, unredeemable people within the construct of an allegory, but the closer to allegory a story becomes the less emotionally affecting it becomes, in my opinion. And within a Christ allegory I would have to question the justice of such human beings even existing, but that is a matter for another philosophical debate. Aside from these quibbles, I thought that it was a good movie. I will not be cheering for it to win best picture or any of the acting awards, though I would not be unhappy with nominations. Currently, I prefer Malkovich over Duncan (or Jeter and Morse, who both did great jobs) and Spacey over Hanks. I suspect that my preference might shift to Carrey, but I have not seen Man on the Moon yet. (Incidentally, I think American Beauty is great -- but much moreso as allegory than a face value drama/comedy. I hope that those deleted scenes are kept out, because I think they would diminish the film.)
"Killed them with their love" meaning.....SPOILERS......random t by drewdog	Dec 13th, 1999 10:57:34 AM
I saw a question here asking what John Coffey meant when he said "He killed them with their love". My wife asked me the same question after the movie. Its really quite clear if you pay close attention to the flashback scene where we find out who kills the two girls. The bad guy (name withheld) says to one girl "if you scream, I'll kill her", then turns to the other and says, "If you scream, I'll kill her". By screaming, they may have saved themselves, but didn't want to risk him killing the other. They kept silent, so, in affect - He killed them with their love for each other. This is really a central theme in the movie - the Green Mile represents life (obviously)and we all are slowly killed by our love for others in a fallen world. The curse for Paul Edgecomb was that he had to love....and experience all the pain and loss that goes with it, for an "extra" long time. For this reason, some people feel that the movie ends with a depressing tone, but I found it life affirming - it hurts to love in a fallen world, and it ultimately kills us......but it's worth it. Just as Shawshank wonderfully explored the Christian themes of hope and freedom, Green Mile explores the Judeo/Christian themes of love and redemption (beautifully portrayed in the short scene where Hanks affirms Graham Greene's hope that if he is truly repentent, he will be forgiven). However, the theme I appreciated most in this movie was that of mercy - treating death-row inmates with dignity and love. The creation of "Mouseville" by the guards in the mind of Del was one of the most dignified and merciful things I've ever seen on screen. There are great performances here to, particularly Michael Jeter as Del, wow, as good Michael Duncan was, I thought Jeter gave the most emotionally stirring performance in the movie. Both Duncan and Jeter deserve supporting nominations. As far as manipulation goes, Durabont, like Frank Capra, can manipulate my emotions anytime.
"Killed them with their love" meaning.....SPOILERS......random t by drewdog	Dec 13th, 1999 11:00:39 AM
I saw a question here asking what John Coffey meant when he said "He killed them with their love". My wife asked me the same question after the movie. Its really quite clear if you pay close attention to the flashback scene where we find out who kills the two girls. The bad guy (name withheld) says to one girl "if you scream, I'll kill her", then turns to the other and says, "If you scream, I'll kill her". By screaming, they may have saved themselves, but didn't want to risk him killing the other. They kept silent, so, in affect - He killed them with their love for each other. This is really a central theme in the movie - the Green Mile represents life (obviously)and we all are slowly killed by our love for others in a fallen world. The curse for Paul Edgecomb was that he had to love....and experience all the pain and loss that goes with it, for an "extra" long time. For this reason, some people feel that the movie ends with a depressing tone, but I found it life affirming - it hurts to love in a fallen world, and it ultimately kills us......but it's worth it. Just as Shawshank wonderfully explored the Christian themes of hope and freedom, Green Mile explores the Judeo/Christian themes of love and redemption (beautifully portrayed in the short scene where Hanks affirms Graham Greene's hope that if he is truly repentent, he will be forgiven). However, the theme I appreciated most in this movie was that of mercy - treating death-row inmates with dignity and love. The creation of "Mouseville" by the guards in the mind of Del was one of the most dignified and merciful things I've ever seen on screen. There are great performances here to, particularly Michael Jeter as Del, wow, as good Michael Duncan was, I thought Jeter gave the most emotionally stirring performance in the movie. Both Duncan and Jeter deserve supporting nominations. As far as manipulation goes, Durabont, like Frank Capra, can manipulate my emotions anytime.
A perfect adaptation (some slight spoilers) by Jack Burton	Dec 13th, 1999 11:12:03 AM
The Green Mile is by far the most precise adaptation I have ever seen of King's work. When I read the script a year ago my hopes went through the roof that they could pull it off and I believe they did. The casting and performances was dead on; especially Duncan, Morse, and Hutchinson, and all of the crucial elements were left alone. The surprisingly dark ending of the novel was left intact and I think that is what really gives the story a powerful resonance. The final line is haunting in the novel, and the movie's line, while different, is just as haunting, if not more so. It is the best film of the year, in a year with some truly stellar competition.
Ok. by Cyclogeek	Dec 13th, 1999 11:18:11 AM
Time for some winter cleaning. This concerns Fight Club, Eyes Wide Shut, American Beauty, and The Blair Witch Project. I hated each and every one of those damn things, along with that other "thing" called The Matrix, and no I haven't seen The Phantom Menace yet. Don't know if I do want to either. Now according to everyone on this site, if I were a true movie lover I would like all these films. I say, FUCK YOU ALL! I love movies, but I have standards and my personal likes and dislikes. Going down the list: FC...wow guys beating the shit out of each other, go to the local bar if you want to see that, they also have pool tables to play with. EWS...the only paradox on my list, well done film, but those damn CGI blocks for that scene pissed me off so bad that I didn't want to see it while I was in France (Euros are OK with sex)AB...whatever that was supposed to mean wasn't it. TBWP...film is an optical medium isn't it? I would have liked to be able to see some of the things that happened. What does this have to do with The Green Mile? Nothing really, I liked it, it was The Shawshank Redemption, but it isn't supposed to be.
Damn by Cyclogeek	Dec 13th, 1999 11:21:00 AM
I've been on this site too long, the retardation is setting in, I meant to say that The Green Mile wasn't The Shawshank Redemption, and isn't supposed to be. Now enlighten me about how "dumb" I am please.
Is Paul Edgecomb Paul of Tarsus? by drewdog	Dec 13th, 1999 11:33:23 AM
One more thing...Sure, the John Coffey "JC" connection is fairly obvious, but how about Paul Edgecomb as Paul of Tarsus? The apostle Paul killed Christians before his conversion (tranformation by Christ). Some historians would say that Paul had some direct responsibility for putting Christ to death. Paul E. killed prisoners until after John Coffee. Both Pauls then spend the rest of their life living according to their life change - no longer killing, but loving in a fallen world. Paul E. said he worked with troubled youth when he left the Green Mile - redeeming them before it was too late. Isn't this similar to the bilical Paul, redeeming gentiles? He even has a possible "thorn in the flesh" like the apostle - cursed to live an extra long life (though the biblical apostle's thorn is unknown). I may be stretching it a little, but I thought it would be fun for debate.
A great film, but not the year's best... by dennis	Dec 13th, 1999 01:26:54 PM
Like I suspected, Tom Hanks once again plays it safe. Forrest Gump minus the mental retardation. If he wins over Spacey for Best Actor, there will be hell to pay. Of course, I still have to see The Talented Mr. Ripley, Magnolia, Gladiators (COULD THAT TRAILER BE ANY MORE AWESWOME?!?!?!), Man on the Moon, The Insider and a whole slew of others. The casting for The Green Mile was excellent all round. I especially liked the man who played Tom Hanks' 2nd. It was a heartwarming film, but I could've done without the bookends, like others were saying. Kind of like with SPR, I felt it detracted from the story. But then, I guess it wouldn't have been a faithful adaptation.
Dands... by TrashcanMan	Dec 13th, 1999 02:59:21 PM
Dands, I have to disagree with you here. I do feel that "The Green Mile" was a great movie, not in spite of its length but because of it. As Harry said, this is a story that needs three hours to be told. Cutting anything out would have hurt it, because even all the little subplots (particularly the one about the mouse) are necessary to make us understand the characters. I can't think of one thing I would want to see cut, but there are a few things from the original book that I wish they HADN'T cut, particularly some of the nursing home stuff. As far as what you said about the villains, I can see your point. I still thought Sam Rockwell and Doug Hutchison were great, but it's true that they could have been fleshed out a little more. -- TCM
Green Mile audience reaction.... by Ninja Nerd	Dec 13th, 1999 04:12:18 PM
Folks, I saw the film last weekend in a theatre where the Dolby Digital was actually working correctly AND the print was flawless. THAT'S important to me..I want a movie to look and sound as good as possible. Anyway, I went to the very first matinee an hour early as I expected long lines. Wasn't the case...the showing I attended had perhaps 80 people...nowhere near capacity. For me, the movie DID NOT seem long and it is the best movie I've seen this year. The interesting thing was that as far as I could tell, the rest of the audience felt the same way. The other thing I noticed was EVERYONE, including myself and some other manly kind of men, going for Kleenex when Paul was "rolling on two". I can't recall EVER seeing a film in over 40 years of moviegoing that affected an entire audience so deeply. Of course, we're talking average, everyday folks here...not studio execs, shills, plants, critics, and various and sundry wannabes. Let's see...who do they make films for again? Oh yeah, those same average joes that buy tickets! In closing, and completely off subject, The Iron Giant IS A GREAT FILM and happy holidays to everyone.
just a thought.. by aluch	Dec 13th, 1999 06:33:51 PM
saw i went and saw Toy Story2 and The Green Mile. i loved the 1st one and kinda was ok with the 2nd one. i liked the green mile,but i didn't think it was great.may be because of the hype, maybe because i was too exited every time i saw a trailer in the theatres, may be because i expected something else,i don't know. 3 hr are not the problem, but to mee it was predictable and sorry but sooo cheesy. i have heared that men cried like babies at the end, but again, i, weeper of all the weepers, didn't even shred a single tear. i think the supporting cast was the best thing about this movie.mouse was a nice touch. the french guy(soryy forgot his name) really got to me, may be coz the sctor is dying in real life as well.of couse it will get nominated, leaving behind some fine movies of 1999( the eyes wide shut, YES it was a great movie, i agree with some folks about cruise, taking risks; fight club,edgy, funny as hell(ed norton is the best actor of his generation, now that's WHO takes risks),one of the best movies i've seen in my life).AB deserves the best actor, best actress.i would give being john malcovich something simply becouse it was the most original and smart thing to come out of the-remake-of-the-remake-of-th e-the-sequel-hollywood. the BEST PIC of 1999? simple: THE SIXTH SENSE( and give the kid the best supporting actor)peace.A
Walking the Mile by Al2913	Dec 13th, 1999 09:21:14 PM
I was honestly a bit uneasy about seeing The Green Mile for two reasons. 1) I am a huge fan of The Shawshank Redemption, a movie that encompassed every possible emotion one could ever hope to experience in a movie theatre. 2) The novel was so good that I thought that no matter how well done the film would be, it could never leave me with that same feeling. Well, I am happy to say I was wrong, and that I absolutely loved this movie. The acting, directing, and writing were superb, as anyone would expect considering the players involved. The plot was enriching and heartbreaking. I cried like a 2 year old, just like I did when i read the book. This film will garner many oscar nominations, and they are well deserved, along with American Beauty, these two films alone will make for a very suspenseful first Academy Awards ceremony of the new millenium. The Award for best actor will be most intriguing with Kevin Spacey, Tom Hanks, and perhaps even Jim Carey ...who knows??
Yeah, let's talk... by Lazarus Long	Dec 14th, 1999 04:48:50 AM
I feel the pain of anyone who loads up this monster of a talk back this many days after it started...anyway, will it be a year of independent vision or Hollywood hokum? For those of you that were watching back in the year of satan (1994) when that right-wing propaganda piece of shit won best picture, remember sitting there and actually thinking somewhere in the dark recesses of man's dying soul there was a chance that Pulp Fiction would do it? I guess after the speech that Tarantino and Avary made earlier, they probably ripped that envelope open just to make sure Gump was in there before they handed it to Clint Eastwood or whoever the joker was that presented it. The point here is, not that I'm accusing all the Green Mile admirers of being total saps, but you know, there's an awful lot of Celine Dion fans out there too. There's 10 million morons in this country who bought that crap. So something that makes a lot of people cry isn't necessarily the best. It's not necessarily the worst either, but it's plain to see by a good portion of the comments on here (and by many critical voices) that this film isn't doing it for everybody, and a lot of the people who aren't crying resent the machinations of the filmmakers that try to do that very thing. And I'd just like to say one thing about film critics. Easy target, folks. I rail against critics who give films like "Jungle 2 Jungle" good reviews. These people are hacks who probably get money from a producer. But these critics that write for major newspapers and magazines are not hacks. You may not agree with them all the time, but if you read many reviews like I do you can tell who knows what they're talking about and has an understanding of the medium. So when critics "gang-up" on a film there's usually some validity to what they're saying. Now I'm the biggest defendant of Fight Club and Eyes Wide Shut, and I think there are political issues that explain why these films got pissed on (most older critics couldn't make heads or tails of Fight Club and why it was so ANGRY, and people were lining up to take pot shots at Kubrick for being a private genius). But when Titanic came out, almost every critic ate this shit up with one of those big wooden spoons people out in the country have hanging over their stove, with a few notable exceptions (see the L.A. Times' Kenneth Turan and his public feud with Cameron, who actually wrote the paper and yelled at Turan for not listening to the voice of the people, calling for his termination. What country are we in, Jimmy?). Now I personally despised Titanic, but the critics were right in that raft with every sucker in this country. So to say that the critics have some kind of agenda against The Green Mile is a pretty weak argument. I don't know what's going to happen on Oscar night, but honestly, the Green Mile hasn't won jack shit from any of the two critics awards that have been released (Nat. Board of Review and the L.A. Film Critics), and if those groups didn't give it anything, don't expect the N.Y. Film Critics or the National Society to. That isn't a promising sign. Well, for me it is. My favorite 2 films of the year aren't winning much, if anything (see above), but I'll settle for American Beauty, and here's hoping either Mr. Ripley or Magnolia can show Frank Darabont the fucking door: don't let it hit you on the ass on the way out, especially if it's raw from suffering through your 3 hour sermon!
Gump right-wing? by drewdog	Dec 14th, 1999 10:44:05 AM
Lazarus, geez, before you drone on and on and "preach" about everyone giving sermons about The Green Mile and its place along side Celine Dion and sappy three hour movies as all part of some vast right-wing conspiracy, it'd be nice if you'd indicate whether or not you've actually seen The Green Mile. I'm right there with you in regard to Celine Dion, and Gump and Titantic were average at best. However, don't put Durabont in w/ that lot - its unfounded and rather insulting - especially if you haven't seen the movie....BTW, who in the flip told you that FG was a right wing propaganda flick? That film wanted to immortalize all the touchy-feely left-wing revisionist history of the last 35 years, but ultimately, it turned out to be a simple little picture about a girl named Jenny....Anyway, there's nothing sappy about Durabonts two films. He has a knack for masterfully setting positive themes against hideously depressing backdrops. The reason they elicit such emotion is because light is brightest when its contrasted with the worst kinds of evil. You can call that schmaltzy, I call it art grounded in a few absolutely truths. You apparently prefer the morally relative hooey that many of us have to sit through until something that actually has a point comes down the pike - and I don't begrudge you that. Just let us have our occasional morally grounded film, and we promise not to suck you up into our vast right-wing plot to destroy the world. The Green Mile isn't a sermon about the death penalty (which it could be) it isn't "ET" (thank God)and its not trying to blow Christian Sunshine up anyone's butt. You want preachy, try The Matrix, which was good, but it beat me over the head with "nothing is real" for two hours. You want preachy, try American Beauty, which tried to convince me that some drug dealing punk filming a paper bag blowing in the wind was somehow "beautiful" - gimme a break. Sorry for the vent...you just got my dander up when lumped in an excellent film (that dares to speak into the abyss with a little bit of truth) with films that don't even remotely stand up to it. I also get the impression that you haven't yet seen TGM yet.
Philadelphia - fitting that it's a brand of cheese by Stosslova	Dec 14th, 1999 11:09:04 AM
In England we have a thick creamy cheese spread called 'Philadelphia', and when I saw the Tom Hanks film of the that name, it was thicker, creamier and cheesier than the spreadable stuff. Whoever it was way back up this ladder who said their gay friend was crying his eyes out at it, that's all very nice, but he wasn't crying at anything to do with sexuality or terminal disease, he was being manipulated BIG BUCKS by the APPPALLLLLLLLING home video shots of some child (supposedly Hanks' character as a kid) and THAT NEIL YOUNG SONG on constant replay in the background. I have never in my life (and I've seen all the Spielberg pictures) seen anything so shamefully manipulative. What we witness in that long last protracted sequence has NOTHING, absolutely nothing, to do with the rest of the film, its themes, or characters. It's just a big fat obscenely irrelevant marshmallow, stuffed in to MAKE YOU CRY. And it works. And it makes you even think you're crying at the picture as a whole. It is the most devious thing I've EVER seen in cinema (second only to a black-and-white Holocaust).
What the Fuck? by TrashcanMan	Dec 14th, 1999 04:07:44 PM
I just sat down to look at the talkback, so I'm a little behind on some of the issues. As far as the whole Spielberg vs. Kubrick thing goes, I agree that Spielberg is generally overrated, but to call him talentless is very shortsighted. Remember "Duel?" That was a brilliant, low-budget movie, and it proved that Spielberg had a real touch with visuals. I think since then the only REALLY good movies he has made were "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan." All the Jurassic Parks and Indiana jones flicks are fun, but they are not the Hallmark of a great director. As for Kubrick and Lynch, I would agree that they never made a bad movie, but I must admit I wasn't a fan of "Eyes Wide Shut." I can respect it, but it's just not my thing. And for all of Agent Cole's comments about homosexuals being evolutionary misfits or whatever, what the fuck is that about? Where do you get off acting like you know anything about homosexuality. "Homo gene" -- is that a technical term. What do you care if it's genetic , or if gay people raise children? Why don't you shut the fuck up and stay out of other people's business? You have no right to pass judgement, and just because you didn't like "Philadelphia" doesn't mean your opinion on sexuality means shit. Thanx - TCM
Three bloody hours? by Pilcrow	Dec 14th, 1999 04:26:50 PM
I'm usually the last to fault a film for length, but I will admit that length is a factor when I'm trying to decide what to see. I don't want to come off as a hyperscheduled yuppie here, but trying to find three hours to devote to a film, especially at this time of year, is a bit of a challenge. Given the complexity of this story, I can see why it's that long, but I think the moviegoing public would have been done a service if this film had been released a little earlier in the year, say late October, when those three hours aren't measured against a schedule of holiday gatherings and shopping.
Green Mile . . . ho-hum. There are far better flicks out there. by Omega	Dec 14th, 1999 07:19:09 PM
Green Mile was good. Period. It was not amazing, impressive or moving. It was just a solid little film lacking any real faults but not really supplying much in the way of emotional punch or anything new. Hanks? Blah. He's the same damn character lately. He's got the range of a daisy air rifle (to steal a line from Dennis Miller). Like all of his previous movies he plays the rock solid, boring guy with no real character. Wow, what a stretch. If I thought watching him play a heterosexual homosexual in Philadelphia was banal, I didn't imagine how bad he would be in future films like Saving Matt Damon and The Green Mile. Oh well, he can always play another retard. But of course Hanks will get an Oscar nod for "playing" another non-character. Yippee!Doesn't matter as Russell Crowe or Kevin Spacey will rightfully snatch the golden boy. Michael Duncan Clark? He's big. That's about all he has going for him and nature designed that, so that leaves his acting at the level of just there. His character and the way he represents it was servicable but nothing special. People are talking Oscar for this guy? Just hand it over to Alec Baldwin for Outside Providence and shut up. David Morse was probably the best actor in the film. Damn good work. I am unaware of the actor's name who played Percy but he too did a fine job with a fun character. The directing? Solid. Darabont is a good director and he gets his story told well, but the movie lacks the magic of Shawshank and it certainly doesn't hold a candle to American Beauty or even Iron Giant. It's good, but not great. Would I see it again? Probably not. Once was more than adequate. I saw American Beauty's only real competition and I must say there is no competition. The Green Mile is good . . . that's all.
Great Review by stiny	Dec 14th, 1999 07:21:32 PM
This is one of the greatest reviews of The Green Mile I have seen yet. Too many critics have been looking for the flaws in this spectacular movie. Not enough critics are praising this movie as being one of the best movies of the year with some of the most memorable scenes in a movie in a long time. This film deserves a lot of credit but it is not getting this credit that it deserves. This review is finally one that gives The Green Mile and its cast and crew the credit that it rightfully deserves.
re: my last post by Lazarus Long	Dec 14th, 1999 07:35:52 PM
I wouldn't have written again so soon (or probably at all), but to respond to the comments on my last post: Yes, I have seen the Green Mile, and I wrote a better post about it way back up there...you don't think it was spewing Christian vomit all over the toilet seat of the world? Come on! I'll agree with you that it I was a follower of Jesus actual message (golden rule, forgiveness) I would be pretty pissed off at this film for appropriating the messiah figure. Because we all know Jesus wouldn't play executioner like J.C. did here. But the caricatures of absolute good and evil that were used in this film are the same type of 2 dimensional crap that is in the bible. It may be good for teaching lessons and all that, but as art it is pretty weak. This argument is going in circles, but at least agree on one point: This film used Archetypes to drive its message home and to a wider audience, something which Cameron admitted he did with Titanic. I just see using that method as a really pandering and unimaginitive way to make a film. It's fine for entertainment, but then don't advertise your film as a Best Picture qualifier, because the films that walk away with awards should always be ones that challenge us. Now as far as FOREST FUCKING GUMP is concerned, I've discussed this many times, but it is clearly to me a right-wing film dressed up as a liberal one. So your contrary description to mine was right--on the surface. "Look closer" and you'll see the message here is to Not Question Anything and Go With The Flow, something rich white males want everyone to do. And Jenny? Well, clearly she represents the liberal American (experiments with drugs, becomes a protest singer, tries to raise a child alone), and what do the filmmakers do to her? They give her a near overdose/suicide attempt, abusive boyfriends, and for the finale, AIDS and death. What does this say? If you try to question the government, or authority, you will be punished. And they tack on the soundtrack so anyone who loves the songs will just associate the movie with everything and cheer along. Probably one of the most reprehensible films (a well made one, no doubt) ever unleashed on the American public, much more subversive than people think, and hey, a classic for the ages.
Good, but not even close to American Beauty by emorr	Dec 15th, 1999 02:28:59 PM
The movie was manipulative and contained too many cliches. The ending was down-beat and could've been clipped a bit. Mr. Jingles could've been clipped. There's an answer for Harry's "where would you cut the movie down" question.
Ratso Predicts by ratso	Dec 15th, 1999 03:09:52 PM
Some critics are like a certain kind of film-goer--they're afraid of emotion in movies. Hence, the few mixed reviews by the "serious" press. DON'T BE FOOLED. THE GREEN MILE will dominate the adult film going world through the holidays. The word-o-mouth and Tom Hanks will see to that. This is a movie THE PEOPLE love (not the media, not the Adam Sandler crowd.) Because of this, look for diappointment at Oscar time for GM.
Overly Long Mile by Aicntb	Dec 15th, 1999 03:49:06 PM
I am still waiting for a review of Anna and the King, another overly long movie, but that's another subject. The Green Mile was good, not great. Some of the acting was excellent, David Morse, James Cromwell and Bonnie Hunt in particular. The movie was at least half an hour too long. The bookend scenes certainly could have been cut in light of the length of the picture, which is not to say they didn't add to the story. I don't know if we needed as many scenes with the mouse either. It didn't help that the prison scenes were totally unrealistic. I am not expecting a completely accurate portrayal from a work by Stephen King, but there should be some basis in reality. I think I will probably reconsider SR in light of FD's direction in this film. I certainly think SR was a better film. As far as the talk of best pictures so far this year, I think Toy Story 2, Boys Don't Cry, Happy Texas, Being John Malkovich, Run Lola Run and Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train are high on my list.
AgentCole by TrashcanMan	Dec 16th, 1999 12:26:55 AM
Don't even try to challenge my mental muscles, pigfucker. If the so-called "homo-gene" dies with homosexuals because they do not reproduce, then how come there are so many homosexuals? The only explanation for this would be that homosexuality is a cultural -- not genetic -- condition, which contradicts your original argument. And you're missing the point -- Whether or not homosexuals are evolutionary misfits should be of no concern to you, because you have absolutely no right to tell anyone how they should or should not live their life. Just live and let live and keep your fucking mouth shut. -- TCM
Lazarus, what are you talking about? by Omega	Dec 16th, 1999 03:08:40 AM
Um . . .forgiveness? Obviously you don't know the Bible. Jesus's big thing was love God and love each other as he (Jesus) loved everyone. Forgiveness? That's something the evangelists tell people to get them to sign up for their religion.
Sleazy Darabont by Sybil	Dec 16th, 1999 10:51:38 AM
All film directors have to manipulate your emotions -- that's their job. Just because you have a job doesn't mean you're good at it. I'll liken it to a salesman. A bad salesman is bad because you can clearly see his tricks; he's obvious in his intent. A good salesman is successful because he never makes you feel like a sucker. A good salesman does his job transparently. The Green Mile not only uses sleazy emotional tactics, but it cheapens the whole experience with a bunk ending. The Green Mile is to film as Christian Rock is to music.
OK Sybil......fair enough......but please explain by drewdog	Dec 16th, 1999 12:57:17 PM
TGM is to film what Christian Rock is to music? Apparently you're saying that both TGM and CR use "glitzy", "secular" mediums/vehicles to shove their closeminded, hypocritical notions of absolute truth down our throats. That about sum it up Sybil?.....What in the flip is wrong with promoting one's agenda with the use of the mediums that are widely accepted? A "good salesman" uses the resources that are going to most affectively sell his product - be it big name actors, rock music, etc. This subtle/transparent crap you talk about doesn't sell anything if people don't understand what the flip you're talking about. Isn't that what Oliver Stone is about - using film to rewrite history the way he sees it? There is certainly nothing subtle or transparent about him. He promotes his truth through his medium. Some Christians use rock as a medium to promote their view of truth - why is that so uncomfortable for you? I'll grant you that some Christians make really lousy rock music, but so do a lot folks that are promoting their alternative versions of "truth according to them". A blanket statement like you made demands an explanation and an acknowledgement of some exceptions to your supposed "ruling" on the subject. I liked TGM, I think it affirms the God-given virtues in all of us...but I didn't cry in this movie. It was not near as emotionally stirring as The Shawshank Redemption, which puts me in tears every time I see it. Neither movie, however, manipulated me. I freely chose to go where they wanted to take me. If Durabont tried to sell me Amway, I'd close the door in his face, because I'm down on the Company. But when he's selling something I'm interesting in, I'll let him come in and "give a demo". I guess I'll just lump you in with Jimmy Swaggert as one of those who thinks that Christians have no business using mediums like rock music, because it's somehow inherently "profane" and can't be compatible with a Christian message. I know that's not what you're saying, but your logic is about is shallow as Swaggert's.
Drew, honey.. by Sybil	Dec 16th, 1999 02:30:21 PM
It all comes down to style. I guess its a matter of taste in how the director will get an emotional response out of you. Drew, if you're never mentally manipulated for the time you're sitting in that movie theatre seat, what enjoyment do you get? You never feel happy, angry or sad? C'mon, you wanna be that bitch who wants to be masterfully manipulated -- that's why you go. We're all bitches in the theatre. I'm saying that TGM manipulates in a cliched style. 1999 is not the year of cliched filmmaking.. The comparison to Christian Rock was a shallow appeal to your emotions. I never said I was talented!
Green Mile* by jo*dymes	Dec 19th, 1999 07:29:08 AM
Thought it was worth my $$ to watch it. Haven't been to a theater since wasting my time with,(should I dare say) The Haunting!!! Good Lord-it bored me to death. I think I need out more often-yes??? Be nice.
King-The most underrated genius of our time by monoman	Dec 20th, 1999 03:07:59 PM
Stephen King and Frank Darabont delivered yet again in the Green Mile. The Green Mile is the best movie I have seen since the Shawshank Redemption and hate to see peoples opinions of the movie being affected by its 3 hours. After reading the book there is nothing that could have been left out and do the work justice. If you can not sit still and be attentive for 3 hours you are an imbecile.
Green Mile by Bilowrites	Dec 22nd, 1999 08:15:31 PM
Wha...? Henh? "Green Mile." Let's see. Penitentiary system. Alabama. The 1930's. And ALL but one of the guards is racially enlightened? Yeah, RIGHT! And ALL but one of the Death Row prisoners is WHITE? Oh, gimmeamotherfuckingbreak! Of course, it would fuck up King/Darabont's ridiculous Jesus fucking Christ allegory to have it any other way. There hasn't been so much obvious bullshit since Alan Parker's despicable "Mississippi Burning." He had J. Edgar Hoover's FBI HELPING the civil rights movement??? Givemeanothermotherfuckingbrea k! Green Mile is like a bad junior high play, and not nearly as deep except in its own shit.
You're Right DeWitt by drewdog	Dec 23rd, 1999 01:26:31 PM
.....I am absolutely, unabashedly prejudiced against punk drug dealers. The Ricky Fitts character in AB ruined an otherwise decent movie. He and the two gay guys are made out to be the only stable people in the neighborhood. A movie that glorifies the character of a drug dealer holds no merit to me. And yes, I did "get it"....the bag blowing in the wind is supposed to be beautiful...blowing effortlessly but somehow purposefully...what a bunch of existential crap. Just because one doesn't agree about what is beautiful, doesn't mean that one doesn't "get it". Give me four prison guards treating death-row inmates with mercy any day of the week. Now that's beautiful!.....and so what if it doesn't "fit" with the 1930's Louisiana prison setting, that's what makes it all the more remarkable in my opinion. I'll take virtuous acts of kindness in my characters over drug dealing and abstractly filming paper bags any day of the week.
Uncle Tom (Hanks) Cabin by Bilowrites	Dec 23rd, 1999 02:22:21 PM
Judging by reactions to Green Mile, wow, it's a real Rorschach test for how totally fucked this country is on race. If Harriet Beecher Stowe had written this crap in the mid-19th century, maybe its "do-gooder" intentions might outweigh its totally racist paternalism. It's astounding that at the end of the 20th century we still love our "niggahs" to be "Yaz boss" big buck dumb fuck shufflin' snivelin' ignorant cryin' jabberin' pathetic --- oh and did I forget to mention -- DEAD! Jesus Christ! Who cares if it's beautifully shot and well told. So was "Triumph of the Will." So what?! Anybody who liked this piece o'crap must have a glass stomach. You've got your head so far up your ass, it's the only way you can see.
Green Mile by Mr.Shufflebotham	Dec 27th, 1999 12:56:58 PM
Not many movies can end well these days. This is one exception. Granted it was rather long,but if you can end a movie well, it is all worth the wait. the ending made me glad I paid attention to what seemed at the time, boring stuff. I walked out of the movie very satisfied. See End of Days for a bad movie ending.
Good stories told well are never too long. by Noman	Dec 30th, 1999 05:05:11 PM
First I've just got to say that I loved "The Shawshank Redemption". I loved that it was different from the original King story in all the right ways and I loved the fact that it took it's time telling us the story. I think that may be Darabont's greatest talent. Giving us movies that are two and half to three hours and making us not notice the length of them at all. Because I loved "Shawshank" so much and because Tom Hanks is in it I was expecting big things from this movie. I don't feel disappointed. Harry was dead on about the acting. It's fantastic. Hanks is his usual excellent self. David Morse needs more work. I mean it. Cromwell is rock solid and I don't think I've ever seen a huge man cry as convincingly as Clarke Duncan. But Hutchison outshines them all. I want to know one thing: is Gary Sinese Hanks' good luck piece or what?
It was great but.... by Jennifer Clark	Dec 30th, 1999 08:34:38 PM
I really liked the movie. Even though it was depressing as hell and emotionally taxing...I liked it quite a bit. The only thing is...if he HAD to die...which I really hoped wouldn't happen..somehow... But if he HAD to die, why did they have to end it the way they did? Why did Paul have to live such a miserable existence...108 years old and counting...and that poor mouse! Geez! Why was he being punished? Why God Why?
LONG by taxi	Jan 4th, 2000 12:15:43 AM
OK movie, could use some cutting. I'm not sure the storyline of the older Tom Hanks is that essential
The Excellent Mr. Jeter by Taia	Jan 7th, 2000 05:41:28 PM
I've just seen The Green Mile and I was greatly impressed. (Having never seen "Shawshank" I can't compare it to that). I simply adore Tom Hanks and anything he does is great as far as I'm concerned (even Private Ryan which I thought was a waste of good talent). The entire cast of this film is tremendous from Bonnie Hunt to Jeffrey DeMunn to Barry Pepper to William Sadler. Excellent casting! But, I believe that the greatest thing about this film is Michael Jeter. He has always been an extremely talented man and I'm so glad that he's getting the work (he's been lacking in that area lately). He is exceptional and will surely be overlooked in the Oscar department. With all the PR heading in Michael Clarke Duncan's direction (he was great!), I feel that Mr. Jeter will be left behind. Too bad.
Green Mile review by MOOVIEFAN	Jan 10th, 2000 11:06:05 PM
I agree with you entirely on this movie Harry. This was the first movie that I have seen in a long time that actually moved me. I have nevered cried at a movie theater before but this movie pulled me in so tihtly that you really have no choice. The critics were definitely wrong about this one. If The Green Mile doesn't win movie of the year there should be an investigation.
Yank hanks by odell	Jan 22nd, 2000 03:03:51 PM
Good story, well filmed, and the acting by the supporting cast is pure sweetness. One major gripe though. Hanks is a nuisance. Yes, ok...Hanks is a good actor but the baggage he carries (he's still the kid in "Big" to me) practically ruins this splendid movie. There are scores of superb and virtually unknown actors that could have carried that role without the muddied image of past characters. Granted, Hollywood is a business, and they want a sure thing. Still, I'm very tired of this guy. I hear they are making a movie of the book Cold Mountain. I suppose Hanks will be the lead...
Will we ever get rid of Hanks and his cheese? by Doctor X	Jan 24th, 2000 06:20:21 AM
I haven
Powder+Big Budget=Green Mile by yzrob	Jan 29th, 2000 03:10:35 AM
Powder+Big Budget=Green Mile
The Green Mile - My Review by RFW	Feb 13th, 2000 01:42:20 PM
Film Reviews 2000 "The Green Mile" - 2/6/2000. Score = 4 out of 10 This film has several great scenes and performances from a very capable cast. The problem here is its obvious direction, there is none? But, unlike American Beauty, this film actually has a statement to make. This, despite it's unique categorization as a story that simply should never have been made into a film. Suffice it to say you had to suspend belief here, and I don't mean just for the CG effects as much as for the social effects. This film's mindset has no conscience! If I had to describe it in the down and dirty manner in which it initially hit my gut instinct... well here goes... This film is about a group of weak minded, self-serving white people, who, but for the sake of their own skin forsake a strong black male [ go figure ]. This kind of filmmaking is a throwback to the shameful "Birth of a Nation era". Besides money, what was the executive's motivation for this flick? If it was left as a story, I could stomach it, but that it was made into a big budget feature starring an acting force that commands media attention in modern filmmaking is shameful. Film 101: Far from just simple lines, a film is a strong visual force, and its effects on any psyche are everlasting, black or/and white! Although you may not ever see a "Mouseville Florida" in your life time, you will remember a strong black male figure surrounded by smaller white men, who for all his great size, and the larger size of his good deeds, receives pure hatred, and is let down in many ways by so-called friends who are white, and ultimately, the white American judicial system. This film is about the unrelenting face of racism in America, and it is very sad, very sad indeed. Sadder still is the following. This years Oscars have only two(2) black males that have a chance at nomination for their acting work, both have a slimmer chance of winning the Academy Award. The irony is that in the year 2000, both of them are nominated for roles in which, as black males, they are falsely accused of a crime they did not commit, and for the majority of their screen time they are behind bars. That's entertainment? Once again, go figure. RFW
read the book!!! by tahareeshi	Feb 23rd, 2000 01:51:07 PM
this is the greatest adaptation of a book i've ever seen. Despite the three hours it took to see it, there were still great scenes not included, changed, or whatnot. READ THE BOOK, IT'S GREAT!!!
The Green Mile by wb	Mar 1st, 2000 07:27:38 PM
Aside from Harry, no reviewer that I've read has even mentioned the William Sadler character, who in that last execution scene thought he was watching the death of the guy who'd butchered his 2 little girls; he must've been confused as to why the guards were being so nice to him. In his shoes I would've been sorely tempted to jump up & stick a knife into the killer's balls or something. He had no way of knowing John Coffey wasn't the killer, because the Tom Hanks character was just a gutless sack of crap too afraid of losing his job to try to stop the execution even though he knew Coffey was innocent, & he let that little maggot guard walk all over him for the same reason. No wonder they got Hanks to play the part: he's the modern Jimmy Stewart, it's impossible (or even un-American) to dislike him. This movie annoyed me in so many ways; studiously presenting the Death Row inmates as such nice guys--yet every one of them (except Coffey) had taken someone's life. The only exception was the Sam Rockwell character, & his chief crime seemed to be not murder but using the word "nigger"--which no other white character used, & this was supposed to be Louisiana in 1935-come on, now; but then, no one mentioned Huey Long's name either, & he merely ruled the state & was assassinated in 1935--so much for verisimilitude.This flick was a late-90s ultra-PC fairy tale, a re-telling of the Christ story with no point because Coffey's death doesn't "redeem" anyone,just dooms Edgecomb & the mouse to endless life--we know why Edgecomb was thusly "punished," but why the mouse? It doesn't hold together even on its own terms. How stupid was that whole mouse subplot anyway? None of the guards thought of buying a goddamned mousetrap? or letting a cat into the cellblock? Many real prisons have cats, from what I've heard. I think Stephen King introduced the mouse into the story for the same reason he always has an animal character: to be killed or abused. That's why I stopped reading King.
which scene could be cut. by dan m	Mar 4th, 2000 07:46:24 AM
Having just seen The Green Mile yesterday and having just read your review I have to say that I agree entirely.However if you were to ask me which scene in the film could be cut (and no this does not mean I think the film is too long) it would have to be the scene where Tom Hanks goes to see Gary Sinise to ask if he believes if Jon Coffey might be innocent. The purpose of this scene is to explore the racist attitudes of even the most educated of people in the south at that time. However this is unneccesary Jon Coffey is found with two dead girls in his arms the fact that he is black and in the south is not an issue. Paul Edgecombe and the other guards with the exception of Percy show no racist attitudes towards any of the prisoners and therefore to take the story away from the Mile is to add a dimension to it superfluous to the plot. As is often said in the film "what happens on the Mile stays on the Mile" Now I know that Darabont's respect for King means that he has an if it's in the book it's in the film outlook but this is one scene he could have justifiably skipped.
The handling of delicate issues by The Crazy FoX	Mar 16th, 2000 06:48:12 AM
One thing that struck me about this film was the character of Wild Bill. This is a man who raped and murdered two little girls, a savage animal who has torn apart the lives of many many people an commited possibly the gravest crimes that he possibly could. A horrific monster, who doesn't deserve to even be killed, since that would not inflict enough suffering on this wretch of a man. How do they treat his character? They make him the comic relief! The idiot who spits moon-pie all over the guards. The foolish foul-mouthed jerk-off that gets flung into solitary every five minutes as punishment for his antics. People on my media course were singing his barbeque song and quoting him. This is not an anti-hero. This is NOT somebody you love to hate, this is a piece of human excrement that deserved to be tortured to death over weeks of agony for his crimes. Give him the dry-sponge treatment. At least he still has hell to look forward to. Hollywood is confused with regards to it's villains. Kevin Spacey and Gary Oldman have glamourised them so that it seems cool to be a murderous bastard. I think that we need to learn a little tact before we handle child-killers in any way other than monsters. Aside from this unpleasant feeling I got afterwards, The Green Mile is a special movie. it really got to me, and it made me repect Tom Hanks in a way i have not felt since before he got silver dollar signs in his eyes after his first Oscar. By no means Shawshank, but the second best prison movie, I have ever seen.
The Green Mile by Oh Blimey	Apr 10th, 2000 06:49:49 AM
This is one of those marvelous films which will under go a rediscovery in about forty years time and be recognized for the masterpiece it is. Three hours is only too long if your sat in a theatre with a bunch of melons who think films should'nt be long enough to fit the story in. God save us from Suits and Halfwits.
The Green Mile by pikachu	Jun 19th, 2000 08:23:14 AM
I thought that this was the most wonderful movie I have seen in a very very long time. I would like to know if this movie was based on a true story. It is an excellent argument against capital punishment. Which personally I think is so very wrong. These men and women are a product of our upbringing in todays society and should not be murdered yes murdered for what they have done. They should be put to work for what they have done instead of giving them an easy way out. They do not learn from that. They just disappear from the earth so no one has to face the real problems.
ok..a lil bit too late but.... by drjones	Oct 4th, 2002 03:36:50 PM
maybe someone will as i come here again and read or post. however, i really enjoyed the movie-
no, this is late by just pillow talk	Mar 18th, 2008 01:53:13 PM
since drjones, there is nothing you possess which I cannot take.
Nice try... by nuovo	Mar 21st, 2008 05:22:56 AM
..."just pillow talk"

Talkbacks

THE GREEN MILE review

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks