Raf

Yup. Utterly.

just nod if you can HEAR me... is there anyone home? I'm stumped.

I finally saw it! And now, my review of the movie version of the stage musical "The Producers!" Here it is: ready? __________________________________________________________________________

I don't mind endings that aren't "happy." I do mind endings that aren't good or satisfying. To me, a movie ending should say that the story I've just witnessed ends here. There are exceptions, such as trilogies: you know, watching The Lord of the Rings, that the story doesn't end until the end of the third movie, so you're willing to forgive the endings of the first two for not resolving the entire story. This movie's ending doesn't feel like the story's over, mostly because the story wasn't that interesting to begin with. "Total waste of time" seems to be the phrase I would pick.

Golden Globe Awards (my opinion) Best Picture: Not deserved Best Director: Not deserved Best Screenplay: Not deserved Best Song: Didn't even notice.

At least one reason comes to mind: The lousiness of this movie is my opinion. My review was not "objective." It was not "balanced." It was my opinion of a moviegoing experience, and others might have a difference of opinion. Do I think there's a political agenda at work here? Yes and no. I think the producers of this wanted to tell a good story, the actors wanted to work with a renowned director, and, frankly, when Hollywood decides to make something about gay issues that's NOT insulting or stereotypical, the rest of Hollywood tends to go a little overboard in its accolades. Tom Hanks is a great, great actor, but Philadelphia was a TV movie of the week as far as quality is concerned. My criticism of this movie left out any good stuff, and there was some. The scene where Michelle Williams finally confronts Heath Ledger is tense and very, very well done. Likewise, Anne Hathaway lights up the screen. And Jake what'shisname, I should say, gives a sincere performance. Every movie has its good and bad, and it's up to the individual viewer whether the good outweighs the bad. I thought the bad outweighed the good in this movie, but Oscar will disagree, whether "he" has seen the movie or not.

All right, I went and saw it today (kept the date happy. She's a real artsy-movie buff). I don't know exactly what to say about this. It is, without question, hands down, the worst 2005 movie I saw. WORST. It's boring. It's virtually inaudible, which is a plus because you can't imagine giving a rat's behind what Heath Ledger has to say. The gay "community" produces plenty of films about their troubles, their romances, their experiences. Like typical "straight" movies, some are well-reviewed, some are poorly-reviewed. I've seen movies with gay themes, although none as pronounced as this one. Some I've liked (Rent). Others, not so much. I do not recommend this movie: not because it "glorifies" homosexuality (it doesn't. Not really. It merely accepts homosexuality as a reality and tells a story about it). I do not recommend this movie because it is a bad movie, with a bad beginning, a bad middle, and an unsatisfying ending. As for how explicit it is: it's not. Not by heterosexual film standards. Basic Instinct is really explicit. By that standard, this was practically a Disney film. There's no full frontal nudity (although there is a nude scene that shows both men, from a distance, in a side view in a non-sexual context: they're jumping into a lake or something). The scene described in one of the earlier posts is there, but you don't see what's described. You just know it's happening. Don't avoid this movie because it's "gay." Avoid this movie because it sucks. No pun intended.

Aww, COME ON!!!! die THE die!!

I was thinking "Bad Boys," but that's hardly obscure, or recent.

I didn't realize this was posted already. I found this on another site (lots of duplication, but some differences):

Highest ratio of box office: cost? Hee hee: I was right. Technically, the above is incorrect. It's the BOTTOM cost:box office ratio, which makes it the TOP box office:cost ratio. But I'm persnickety that way.

And based on the 50-50 split in the poll results thus far, Mark, do you have any preliminary conclusions? Half of the respondents say go easy on him, the other half say punish him normally or extremely.

All I'm saying is box office doesn't prove or disprove any part of this. The Globe awards have lauded box office Mighty Mice and box office Mini-Mice. I think the question is whether this IS a good movie worthy of awards, or whether it's a lackluster effort being exalted by the elite because of its subject matter (much like that TV-movie-of-the-week, Philadelphia). I, for one, will never know, because I have no intention of seeing this movie. I just don't find it interesting. And it's not an anti-gay thing, either, because I was among the first in line to see Rent and Capote, but still have not seen The Hours or Good Night and Good Luck (and if anyone was going to rush to the latter film, you'd think it'd be me).

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You rock, Mark.

Mark, Interesting that you can't remember the last time it went to a low budget, low grossing film. You only had to go back one more year. In 2003's ceremony, the winner was The Hours, ($41 million gross after some 20 weeks). Then there was American Beauty, 2000's ceremony. And let's not even MENTION nominees that didn't win, such as Closer last year. Far from what you mention, the Golden Globes typically try to honor lower budget, limited release films, if not with awards, then certainly with nominations. How else to explain Philip Seymour Hoffman winning the Best Actor award for a film I guarantee only a single-digit-fraction of GSers even knew was OUT, much less have seen?

Neither of those are serious films. Compare it to serious R-rated films. Compare it to Crash, or Million Dollar Baby. Let me know what you find. And again, you're leaving out that the first several weeks of Brokeback Mountain's box office was in limited release. How's it doing since it's been in wide release? Notice something about these numbers? $5,726,662 (USA) (8 January 2006) $4,847,443 (USA) (1 January 2006) $2,951,071 (USA) (25 December 2005) (217 Screens) $2,508,494 (USA) (18 December 2005) $547,425 (USA) (11 December 2005) They're climbing. Box office numbers typically decline weekend to weekend. This film's numbers are going up! I'm not saying it proves anything, but it doesn't disprove anything either.

It's one less than 25 but one more than 23. Get back to work! :)

Mark, Your box office analysis failed to note that Brokeback Mountain is almost certainly adults only, while whole families are going together to see King Kong. Limited audience means limited box office, but that doesn't mean the filmmaker's message is not getting through. Comparing Brokeback Mountain's grosses to King Kong's is like comparing Jay Leno's ratings to CSI's. If CSI had Leno's ratings, it would be thrown off the air faster than you could say "Manimal."

The Movie Timeline is a Web site dedicated to documenting history according to film. For example, we all know that on Nov. 5, 1955, Marty McFly arrived in Hill Valley from the future. We also know that a long, time ago, Luke Skywalker and Han Solo led a rebellion against the evil Empire. And we know the date that Vulcans made First Contact with humans. Anyway, there's plenty more. Take a look at the site and, if you remember any specific, verifiable dates, add it to the list!

Nice try, but disingenuous. What LCM does in the privacy of his bedroom now does not concern me. But the fact that he, as a minister, thought he had a right to my wife, and that we would be disobedient to God if we did not let him use her as a receptacle for his lust: well, you're darned right that would concern me. (disclaimer: I was speaking in the hypothetical. This never happened to me). Please tell me if I misread you.

:) The Breakfast Club is correct.

Hint: the joke has no punch line. The writers never finish it, and the character telling it ... well, something happens to distract him.

Two notes. First: I misread the name of this thread. I thought it was "How did GSC and Waydale Help You." My small post was in response to that. I later saw it was "How Did GSC and Waydale Help You Leave." Oops! I'm among those who left before either site existed. Second: My comment about f-ups was meant as a joke, as I'm sure it was taken, but Bramble, that was one classy reply. :)

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Sounds pretty unconditional to me. :)

The current season of Alias is the last.