Will shouts: Devin, not to pick a wound… but…
The New York Times carried an article about how Disney is advertising Narnia with a Christian Rock soundtrack (Evanescence, Jars of Clay, etc), and playing it up on Christian Rock stations. Apparently, Disney had the option of producing a "secular" soundtrack as well as a "Christian" soundtrack, but have only released the later. Personally, nothing gives me gas like Jesus rock.
I understand that Christian allegory is inherent to this story, but I don’t need it spoonfed to me. I can enjoy the Christian influence in all of Western literature without having it spelled out to me. It would appear to the cynical that Disney is upset about the lack of geek buzz for these movies. LOTR was actually read by a good lot of Americans! The average person on the street would have no recognition of any Narnia characters! So maybe Disney decided to fish for some of that Passion money.
Alls I’m sayin’ is that I hope Kirk Cameron doesn’t show up in the movie! I’d love to know what you think of this.
Hugh shouts: In the future, please do not put detailed plot spoilers in your reviews…especially in the opening paragraph.
I am referring to your review of DOOM. I am going to see this movie, and now I will sit and wait to the FPS sequence at the end of the movie with expectation of the detail you described. This will impair my enjoyment of this film (which would probably be somewhat challenged anyways).
There was no need for you to provide such a detailed spoiler. It did not add to the information in your review. You could have referred to the sequence in terms that would have not given the plot point away.
The inclusion of this detail was rude and a tremendous disservice to anyone who happened upon your review. From today forward, I will carefully avoid all movie reviews posted at CHUD.com…at least until AFTER I have seen the movie.
Eugenia shouts: I was hoping you could clarify something in your North Country review. In the sixth paragraph, you state that, "after all, harassment by definition never rises
to the level of assault or rape." Is that the actual legal definition of harassment? Because it seems entirely plausible to me that a systematic pattern of harassment could lead to either rape or assault, and I’m sure there are many sources that can attest to
that. (In fact, just last night I read about a female firefighter was nearly raped by a co-worker who had been harassing her – I’m sure there are many more out
there like her whose stories have just not been heard.) I’m not trying to attack you, as I can see that you geniunely liked the film and that you find the subject matter important, but it might be instructive for your readers if you could explain your statement a bit further, as most of them, I’m assuming, are male, and may inadvertently come away
with the impression that sexual harassment can never lead to physical violence. (Which, actually, doesn’t the film contradict, if what I’ve been reading is correct? I.e., that Josie (Charlize Theron’s character) was raped after being harassed?)
Anyway, thanks for reading this, and I appreciate your thoughts on the film, which I’ve been very much looking forward to seeing.
P.S. Not to revisit the Serenity brouhaha, but I did want to extend a belated thanks for being the only person, it seems, to mention the lack of Asian castmembers in Firefly and Serenity in Part I of your interview with Joss Whedon. That omission, both in the
show and in the movie, has always bothered me, and I found Joss’s dismissive comments about why this happened, in particular his remark about casting someone who "looked sort of Asian," to be fairly offensive and insulting. So thanks for bringing that
to light, as Joss’s comments and overall attitude have been very useful in helping me decide where to spend my money at the movies, and so far, it has not been at
my local theater’s showing of Serenity.
Mohammed shouts: How come (to the best of my knowledge) you (as in CHUD.com) haven’t reviewed Domino. Whats up with that?
We all know it’s crap…….but need that score out of ten please.
Jack Bradford shouts: You forgot four brothers
Dharmesh shouts: Hi dude, I read your piece on Superman 2, unfortunately there’s a glaring error: Richard Donner signed knowing full well that he was making two films. The probable reason for his firing? He went on record slating Pierre Spengler, Donner said he will not return to finish 2 unless Pierre is taken off the picture as producer. The Salkinds decided that they didn’t need Donner so they fired him.
The Salkinds hired Guy Hamilton for the interim but he couldn’t return to England to shoot because he was a tax exile.
Richard Lester was owed monies so he took the job.
We’ll never know exactly why he was fired but I think it was due to money being owed. Donner and Brando were owed money, the latter would have taken out an injunction against Superman 2 if he wasn’t paid, so they cut him out.
Richard shouts: In your article about MUNICH, you say rushing it out into theaters by
December 23rd would affect its quality. I’d say you’d be right if we were talking about Jo Schmo…but this kind of thing you can’t put past Speilberg to accomplish. He did virtually the same thing on WAR OF THE WORLDS, a movie whose flaws are so ingrained into the actual story that no editor could fix them anyway. MUNICH succeeds or fails on the page, I think.
Alex shouts: I finally saw BATMAN BEGINS last night and read your review this morning.
You gave voice to my feelings. I think you absolutely nailed this review.
Dan shouts: Your comment at the top of the article has made me think. If it was done right, I think a remake of The Black Hole wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. Every time I watch that, I think, "there’s the core of a good movie in here somewhere, but they didn’t know how, or care to, find it." I mean, it’s like Heart of Darkness meets Frankenstein meets 2001 meets… well, I never did figure out what they were trying to do at the end.
I would much rather see remakes of old movies that had decent premises but weren’t good than remakes of good movies that don’t measure up. Of course, I imagine that doesn’t make much business sense to the studios.
Anthony shouts: Unfairly maligned???! While I agree that it has it’s moments (only a few), overall the film just doesn’t make any sense…so if she was the killer all along, then who was the person in the beginning, throwing the head into the field, while her and her friend were driving to her family’s house? I enjoy a twist like the next guy, but it has to follow some sort of *&$% logic.
The cinematography was nice, though. I’ve read Black Hole…I hope Paramount knows what its doing.
NetXodus shouts: Why don’t you guys ever report ANYTHING on the new Silent Hill film? Information on this movie basically doesn’t exist anywhere on your site. Is this intentional? Some pictures were just released for the movie, so I’m submitting these.. I guess.. just for the hell of it.