I really want to see this movie, but it hasn't come out in Chattanooga yet. Tim Burton and Ewan Mcgregor being involved in it alone makes me think it will be something good, but the story, which I couldn't quite figure out from the previews, also looked unusual and interesting.

Yeah tell me about it. I've been thinking of driving someplace, but it wasn't in Nashville either. I bet it is in Atlanta.

Will

NO SPOILERS!

Big Fish was great.
only a few parts that kind of had me a little dissapointed. It is definately a Tim Burton movie in a couple parts that everyone will recognize off the bat but it feels like he is losing a lot of confidence in the wit of his audience.

one scene in particular (no spoilers here, promise) made plain view of it. as the Ewan Mcgregor character walks into a haunted forest he runs into various obstcles. where once tim burton would let the audience figure out what was going on on their own, he now has signs in place letting you know whats about to happen. its not a huge gripe and definately doesnt bring down the movie but it is a little dissapointing that he keeps losing his edge.

the cast is wonderful and a few scenes are just beautiful. i caught it this weekend in Montgomery, AL because that was actually where most of the film was shot. im sure it will show up in green hills within the next few weeks though. i suggest y'all check it out.

january 9th.
i'm reading the book now.
can't wait to see it

I really want to see this movie

I cannot wait to see it. That's one movie I actually plan on spending the $8.00 to see.

Ditto. Ewan is too pretty in the previews, and I love Tim Burton.

I'm really excited about this movie, part of the reason being that Pearl Jam did an exclusive track for the film (Man of the Hour) that was subsequently nominated for a Grammy. The band saw the movie and said it was a tear jerker in interviews. Doesn't seem as dark as some of Burton's earlier work.

J

SOME SPOILERS, I guess.

We battled the throng at Green Hills last night and got to see Big Fish . I thought it was visually stunning (as I expected it to be) and highly enjoyable. The acting was good -- I especially enjoyed Helena Bonham-Carter's performance.

I felt it had some problems, namely that I couldn't help feeling that the older Edward Bloom (Albert Finney) was completely full of himself and didn't seem to care as much about his son or even his wife as he would lead you to believe. All of the stories he told were about how he was so great, etc., etc.

That small flaw aside, though, I still found the film a pleasure to watch and look forward to seeing it again when it comes out of DVD.

I to o saw it last night at the Green Hills cluster fuck.

This film will win massive amounts of awards. Its a pretty decent film, but it appeals to a wide scope of people (i.e. voters) it won't be as segmented as a Lord of the Rings. Cold Mountain will give it a run for its money... but I feel a Forrest Gump type swell with this film.

I still think American Splendor is the best film of the year.

Big Fish is my number three for the year (behind Mystic River and Spellbound). I loved it from start to finish, but I'm a sucker for father/son stories and Gump-ish explorations of a full life. I loved the ending though. My friend thought that it resolved everything too much, but I disagree entirely, feeling that it left everything with the right amount of ambiguity.

Will

It's been a long time since I wished I was a giant, but now I want to be 15 feet tall.

I really loved this film. I found myself viciously fighting back tears at the end, which I rarely do in real life, much less in movies, and was surprised to see how much the film really "moved" me. I thought that Ewan McGregor and Albert Finney did a great job being the same character. I was convinced. I thought it could have been really hokey and fall under the "feel-good movie of the year" type shite, but I think Tim Burton saved it from that fate (which probably would have happened had Spielberg had kept with it). I also like how it was very different from many Burton movies, which I love, but yet definitely had the Burton imprint on it. I hope it wins best picture out of all the things that could.

After all the glowing reports, I'm feeling I must have must have missed something with this movie. I was a bit sleepy Friday night, so maybe that has something to do with it. All in all, out of the films I've seen this year, I think Cold Mountain was my favorite. Of course, I missed Lost in Translation , which I really expected to enjoy.

I need to see this movie because obviously Tim Burton scored big again.

Did you not see Lost in Translation or did you mean "missed it" as in you didn't see what was so great about it?

I really wanted to see this at first, but I'm seeing more and more negative reviews. All the negativity, however, seems to focus on the fact that the movie was overhyped. I think the key here if you're going to see it is FORGET THAT THIS IS A TIM BURTON MOVIE AND DON'T EXPECT FORREST FRIGGIN' GUMP. Just go into it expecting a moving, well-made movie. That'll be my approach at least.

i loved it. i got in a good cry and left happy. it's not as strange as most burton stuff, so i reckon people like my mom who were a bit weirded out by, say, edward scissor hands and nightmare before christmas, will go out to see it. anyone who gives it a bad review is a dipshit.

I meant I didn't get to see it, but I would really like to. I know it's still out, but it's getting expensive going to the movies these days!

i saw it tonight and enjoyed it much more than big fish and cold mountain, which i thought were fantastic as well. i haven't laughed so hard in a movie in a very long time. no one else in the theatre really laughed, though. except for when i snorted. anyways, i think you should spend the money to see it. a matinee at least.

i don't know why the quote won't work.

(Edited by rachel at 10:06 pm on Jan. 12, 2004)

Hmmm... Maybe I will!

i take it back. tonight i saw that it would be coming to blockbuster on febuary 3rd.

And lord knows that NTSC television signal is a viable substitute for light projected through celluloid 24 times a second...

But that might just be me and my snobbery. In fact it is. But this is an attitude that I hate as much as any other.

Of course, Blockbuster'll have it in "Full Screen" too, so the fun never stops.

Will

Personally, for a dialogue-driven drama like this one, I say this is true. I would not say this is true for a movie like Return of the King (although the director's cut should be outstanding).

Hell, I've heard much better sound quality in friends' "home theaters" than I have in some multiplexes. Plus, when you watch in the comfort of your own home, you don't have to listen to whatever flash-in-the-pan pop song is big right now or watch any fucking TV comercials before the movie after paying the $8 to get in the theater.

Plus, you can watch videos naked, which will come in handy for the Scarlett Johansen scenes

We'll have to agree to disagree about when video is a viable substitute for film projection. Personally, I think it is insulting to Lance Accord and the grip/electric and camera crews to suggest that just because Lost in Translation is dialogue-driven it isn't worthwhile to see it on 35. But again, this is just something that I'm passionate about and believe strongly in.

As for the TV commercials, I was outraged this break when I went to Tennessee and found that to be the case. As yet, this trend hasn't hit Chicago. We still get trailers, but no out-and-out commercials. I was appalled.

Will

My mass comm teacher 3 semesters ago (good ol' Dr. K) informed us that the trend of commercials in theaters started in Europe a while back. The only reason that it hasn't caught on so widespread here in the US is because of the public's resistance. Since that class, I've noticed that the number of commercials before the previews has probably tripled. It's sad.

Yeah, it's like...there are commercials on TV, but TV IS FREE! (Or at least comparatively much cheaper in the case of cable).

I figure that paying $8 for two hours of viewing in a movie theater should be commercial-free. If they want to start putting commercials before the movies, they'd better start reducing the prices of that shit, instead of raising them every year. Seriously!

The whole reason there are commercials on the front of movies, is because theaters have a hard time making a go of it. It's pure revenue for them. I grew up working in an independent theater (not indie films, just not a chain theater). I remember when Batman came out. It had all this hype and blah blah blah, then my boss found out that they wanted $4K up front for the print and then they wanted what at the time was an unheard of 80/60/40/40 non locked contract. What that means is that once you paid them for the print (actually rented), you then had to show the film for 4 weeks. At the end of four weeks they would then rank your weeks in order of grosses. The highest grossing week they would take 80% of the box office, then 60 and so on. They paid it, and Batman did well, but it was the begining of the end for that theater. It once was a 520 seat single 1920's Fox Theater. Now its a shitty run down hacked up double screen that they were forced to twin so they could make a profit. And now its out of business.

I hear this is standard now for even a film like Daddy Daycare. That's why there are huge cineplexes that charge $8 and even more for concessions. They have to have the screens to place bombs like Cat in the Hat. Did you notice what a suckfest that movie was, yet was still in first run theaters for 6 weeks? Its all because the distribution companies have a lock on their product. And that's why indie films get choked out of the big places (they have to appeal to the "mass ass")

I've lived in Nashville, close to 5 years now and I'm still stunned that Green Hills has the films that it gets. It's pretty progressive for a chain like Regal to give as many as 3-4 screens for smaller films. So for that reason, I bemoan the commercials but see it a s a necessary evil. Just like those digital projectors they now use. "The 20" has to be a huge profit for them, and good for them if it keeps them profitable.

I'm like Wiyum, I still like to see a film (as in not 1 and 0's) be projected onto a screen and have the whole "movie experience"

Enough of my raving lunatic ranting...

If you got verklemmt, it was probably the well timed Pearl Jam tune (Man of the Hour). Hehe. I have to give props to the band that saved my life.

Jeremy

Well, I agree that the theatre experience is far superior to at-home viewing in almost every way...except for the nude viewing experience, which of course can't be topped.

That said, I imagine that Lost in Translation won't be at theatres much longer, and I've got a busy next couple of weeks. Therefore, I might just have to settle.

Oh, and fuck TV commercials at the movies. That and fundraising. Some Regal employee actually interrupted our commercials (not a bad thing, really) at Big Fish in order to collect change and bills from patrons for their cause (raising $5,000 for some illness). I found this especially annoying, even if I shouldn't have. I mean, couldn't Regal have shaved a little off the $8.00 admission price and given to said cause themselves? Or are theatres really that broke these days?

As I understand it, theaters don't make any money from the films themselves, I think except for them to break even on what it cost them to get. Most of their money comes from concessions and advertising. Of course, I could be wrong, and there are a lot of people who know more about it than me on here...

This is absolutely true. As I've heard it, a film that doesn't last 3 weeks at the theater loses money for the theater, and one that isn't wildly popular for more than six doesn't turn much profit at all. I understand the need for theaters to make money (which is why I never sneak concessions in and try to buy concessions when I can afford it), but the tv commercials make me upset, and I'm glad we don't have them here.

I am spoiled though, because one block from my apartment I have a nice 18 screen multiplex that shocked the student population when it opened and announced that 6 screens would be dedicated to "arts, independent, and foreign" for an entire year. 3 years later, they still have those 6 screens. Meanwhile, projection and sound have been rock solid, student ticket prices are affordable, and no tv commercials. All I could ask for.

Tennnessee has the worst theaters in the country. With little exception, Carmike and Regal are the two worst chains I've ever visited. Century, Loews, and AMC clean up in terms of quality.

The studios need to change their policies, but one must also remember... it is damned expensive to strike a print. This isn't a drop in the bucket, and they have to be rented so expensively to theaters because by the time the theater is done with it, there is little money to be made from that print. The print has to pay for itself as well as pay for the cost of the movie, and even then it isn't making anyone any money. Still, theaters are suffering, and studios need to realize that if they kill the theaters, everyone loses.

Will

They do make something... but like I said in my previous post they get taken to the cleaners. I think there are even 90% contracts out there on big films. So like on "Lord of the Rings" Regal may get 80 cents of that $8 on opening week.

Has Green Hills gone all digital?

What most major chains need to learn is that a multiplex that dedicates several screens to smaller, independent movies will make money from those films, because they won't be anywhere else in the area, and dedicating multiple screens makes an audience familiar with the concept of "other movies." The Evanston Century theater has done remarkably well with its 6 arts and independent screens, and often has an indy on the mainstream side too when alot of good independents are out.

Will

Studios have their own facilities to strike prints, so that's negligible. If you or I were to get a 35mm print struck on a full length feature though, it could easily run close $40k. Don't get me wrong, there is a cost in it, but it obviously isn't that big of deal when Daddy Daycare opens on 5000 screens.

I should clarify that... they use digital projectors to run this 20 minute string of commercials and "making ofs..." called "The 20" that they show instead of the slide projectors with local businesses as before. They are good high quality projectors though... which don't come cheap either. My guess is that some ad agency bought the equipment and pays Regal a tidy little sum to screen that show, they then turn around and charge whoever is in the show for a less intrusive "infotainment commercial"

At Carmike, almost all profit comes from concessions, which is why we are brainwashed to upsell every man, woman, and child (yes, child). If we don't do so, we're fired. Period. They also make us take 45 minute to hour long breaks so they can pay us less. They also send people home at any time possible so they won't have to pay them.

Just a note, yes commercials suck and yes the prices suck. I totally get that. But don't take it out on the employees. Except for the weirdos that are employed at theaters for over 16 months, everyone hates their job. Just listen to the combos and upselling. Yeah it takes about 10 seconds, but it takes the same amount of time to yell at the concessionist. Then we do all that we can do in revenge: fill your cup up with ice.

And I must admit that Ceeze was right those many, many months ago. Being a concessionist sucks beyond belief, mainly because of the crappy just-above-minimum-wage pay. It's also incredibly embarrassing.

(Edited by DigsySlattery at 7:45 pm on Jan. 14, 2004)

I can only speak for the second-run movie theater at which I worked for a year and a half. I know for a fact that that theater made little if any money at all on admission prices. While (to my knowledge) there were no "percentage of box receipts" requirements, they still had to pay to "rent" the movies.

This place literally made all of its money on concessions. But those concessions dollars are nothing to scoff at. Do the math on how much even a small soda or a small popcorn costs the movie theater (cup + lid + ice + syrup + CO2, for example), and the profit margin will make your head swim. So I don't feel sorry for the movie theaters at all, and I will not tolerate product commercials before movies.

Movie theater employees are definitely rediculously underpaid. Of course, everybody starts at minimum wage. But hell, the assistant managers at my theater only made $5.75 per hour, and this was in 1995-1996!

(Edited by jamiecarroll at 2:08 am on Jan. 15, 2004)

Oh, trust me, I'd never take those things out on employees. Concessions is a terrible hell to be in, and lord knows I know it isn't your fault. Bad projection, though, is actually to a degree unlawful, and you'd best understand that I take *that* out on whoever I can get ahold of to fix it. Twice at the Carmike in Chattanooga, I've had to correct them from projecting THE SOUND STRIPE. Give me a break, folks. I understand that this isn't dedicated projection and that many screens have to be monitored by one projectionist, but at least have the decency to focus the projector, project in the proper aspect ratio, align the projector, and not project the fucking sound stripe. I know this isn't you Digsy, I'm just ranting.

Another plus to my theater in Evanston... concessions are largely self-service, so I fill my own cup with ice and don't see anyone until it is too late to have been upsized.

Will

I was a projectionist for the last six months of my tenure at the movie theater. I still feel that it was the best job I've ever had, but the $4.75 per hour just wouldn't cut it, even in high school. But the job itself was awesome. I was by myself up in the projection room for hours and hours at a time. When new movies would come in, I'd have to "build them up" and add on the previews and theater announcements. But aside from that and the occasional splice or focus adjustment, the job was mostly just watching movies.

The sound went out today in Cold Mountain. Never in my life have I seen a man as large as my manager move that quickly. He had the speed of a cheetah. Projectionists are considered to be at manager level at our theater, but I doubt they make much more than I do. They throw darts a whole lot. And working on a Thursday is, possibly, one of the most mind numbing experiences ever.

Sorry to get back to the original topic, but I saw Big Fish tonight. Overall, an excellent film. With a few exceptions, I sucessfully ignored the fact that it was a Tim Burton flick.

My only beef-- some of it was way too overstated (SEMI-SPOLIERS: i.e. like the identity of her fiance or the piano teacher (ooooooh yeah, it's that guy/girl) or the obvious moral of the whole friggin' film being vocalized right as the credits started to roll).

Oh, and I hate to say it, but the PJ song was a disappointment.

Yup to this & PF & Wiyum's comments- I used to have the same job & tried to explain this conundrum to angry popcorn buyers. Then they would look confused and/ or yell at me. At some point, I just started spitting in their Cokes instead. That job ruined me in 2 ways: (1) I can't eat movie popcorn anymore, after smelling like it for a year and (2) a thick scar on my pinky finger where I almost cut it off on the lid of a nacho cheese can

Yeah, I almost totally disagree. One problem may have been that I kept dozing off. But to me, it was a collection of mostly quaint and mostly pretty vignettes that had nothing to do with each other, framed in a most tedious & cliche story of estranged father & son. I liked a few ideas and a few scenes, but I thought the actors were wasted because all they had to do was gaze in wonderment and/ or raise their eyebrows in strange ways. The emotions seemed shallow, I didn't give a damn about the characters, and the fantastical aspects were more like a sideshow. Of course, the moments I liked were way better than the average movie, but I'm still disappointed.

Oh yeah, I didn't cry at all & I'm not sure how it's a tear jerker? Does this make me cold & heartless?

(Edited by Lauren at 11:46 am on Jan. 17, 2004)

indeed. very much so.

I'm still able to eat popcorn at times. The fact that I can get scarred working there terrifies me. My manager has a long moon-shaped scar on her forearm from the popper. Scars in general just terrify me. When I burned my hand on mexican food two weeks ago, I was terrified that I would be stuck with these three burn marks for the rest of my life.

Why do I even post...

Digsy... you need a bitching scar.. it'll give ya some bad ass mojo character

I have a small scar on my ear from where my dog bit it when I was in 6th grade...is that cool?

You should go the extra mile and carve one yourself. I did in high school and look how badass I am.

Scars are good conversation pieces-- especially when the ladies ask if they can see 'em For instance, I have one from a feak kickball accident on my upper thigh that Sina keeps begging to see.

(Edited by carligula at 4:37 pm on Jan. 19, 2004)

battle wounds!

No. I had a hard time seeing how it could jerk anyone's tears. Now I do have to admit that I got a little watery-eyed during Cold Mountain.

I finally saw it last night, and I thought it was beautiful. Tim Burton did another fabulous job. I thought Ewan and Albert were a perfect match, and I cannot imagine a better combination for that role. I think I was successful at only letting out one tear close to the end as I was trying to hold them back.

I'm upset it wasn't nominated for best picture. I probably wouldn't call it "Tim Burton's Masterpiece" like some have been, but it's pretty close. And that's probably because I will always think of Edward Scissorhands as his masterpiece.

(Edited by Sexy Sadie at 10:36 am on Jan. 28, 2004)

edward scissorhands is probably his masterpiece but Pee-Wee's Big Adventuer is his best film.

Oh, you don't have to tell me that. Pee-Wee's Big Adventure is one of the best films ever...infinity!

I don't know if you were being sarcastic or if you meant it. But I mean it.

Aw, Pee-Wee...

(Edited by Sexy Sadie at 10:59 am on Jan. 28, 2004)

no no no i wasnt being sarcastic at all. that is definately one of my top three favorite movies. its one of those that i can quote line for line.

i dont make monkeys, i just train'em!

we're watching big fish in our drama class tomorrow. which is great. but probably not legal.

A bootleg?


If so, that's pretty funny, and definitely illegal.

Yes, I saw it last night as well and I have to say that it was quite nice. I can't think of any other time that young versions of characters actually looked like their older counterparts. The casting was quite great in that way. The visuals and story were also very impressive. Very good movie.

i'm starting to think i shouldn't have said anything. um. don't tell anyone about this.

too late, rachel! lookout, it's the heat! they're on you!

i saw big fish last night, too. i liked it a lot. i'm not a tim burton enthusiast or anything, so i didn't really compare it to any of his other films. i just liked the film.

i really do have this horrible mental image of me walking into class and my teacher is being carted away in handcuffs and there's lots of screaming and crying and mascara running. pretty dramatic for just a bootleg, but then again, it is drama class. huhuh.

does that last bit even qualify as a joke?

That last bit is a clue from a Taboo game given by one of our humorous friends.

"Snowtel." Man, he was good at Taboo

Best Burton flick since Monkeybone.