MrSaigon wrote:Is there a reasonable explanation why 'Lee Daniels' The Butler' isn't called, I don't know, 'The Butler'? I hope so. Even James Cameron doesn't do that, and I think I read that he has those guys in robes with 6-foot trumpets announce his arrival everywhere he goes.
It's astounding that anyone would have the chutzpah to mount a challenge like that, much less that it would be upheld, over a 99-year-old movie in the public domain, and a title that's a common English word instead of something specifically coined for either movie. Bizarre.
I am not sure if I will have the guts to see Gravity. Claustrophobic stuff gets to me way more than gore or cheap shocks. The two most similar films I can think of to this premise, Sunshine and Moon, were both awesome and rather difficult to watch for me. Add Cuaron's intensity from Children of Men? Egad.
On the complete opposite spectrum, I cannot wait to see Anchorman 2 in a theater full of other people with varying states of sobriety.
The kid and I watched the Hunger Games and liked it. This movie was out of her Disney comfort zone. But she really got into it. Made her think a bit. I enjoyed that it functions as commentary on reality shows. She asked me a few times - if the world was ever like this - people that poor and the classes.
I left it alone. But felt guilty that when we referred to the weirdos in the chosen city/metropolis - we just simplified it and called them "the rich people".
heyzeus wrote:Woodie Allen doesn't know how human beings talk, or live, or anything.
And he never has. He's funny, brilliant and super talented, but man is his idea of what people are like really alienating at times. He can make a movie that's pitch perfect 99% of the time and then just one scene or relationship or line or conversation or whatever pops in and just reminds me that Woody Allen is loathsome. That never happens to me with Polanski movies, oddly enough.
