Conference bookie::movies

    Looks like my transmission broke up  and added extra letters
    that shouldn't be on Michele's name.....unavoidable when
    off site..

RE .1 - And took off some letters... (seeing as "Michelle" has 2 l's :-) )

				-- Nina

    Well, Michelle Pfeiffer is "ok" by me, so the extra letters are
    not inappropriate. ;-)
    
    The movie, however... well, I'm not going to rush to see it, though if
    anyone whose opinion I trust raves about it I suppose I might. Part of
    my problem with it is that Jack Nicholson looks so much like a werewolf
    (and one who enjoys his job!) that I find it redundant to make a movie
    about it. 
    
    Another problem is that the "beast inside all of us" treatment is
    usually - IMHO - done *way* too broadly, thus allowing the audience to
    maintain some distance from it. "Well, *my* beast inside is much better
    behaved than *that*," we can say, or "why couldn't poor Dr. Jekyll Just
    Say No?"
    
    But I suppose a movie demonstrating someone who's a decent person most
    of the time but becomes Very Selfish And Rude when driving a car
    wouldn't be big box office. They'd have to push "selfish and rude" into
    "armed with flamethrowers and nuclear explosives" to even get it
    filmed...
    
    Then again, perhaps the "killing the thing he loves" bit will be worked
    up as a metaphor for abusive relationships - "Women Who Love
    Werewolves," today on "Geraldo"?
    
    -b

    567.3
    I thought your reply was funny and boy I needed a laugh tonite...
    I agree about the "ho hum" Werewolf angle  but who knows maybe
    it will surprize us and be a decent flick.
    by the way  what the "original note" should have read was
    "......Pfeiffer looks rather interesting"
    

    re .3
    
    	as for pushing 'rude' up to the machine-gun and flame-thrower 
    level . . . why does that remind me of Falling Down ? :-)
    
    					- Jim

    re. 5 (which was re. 3)
    
    That's what I thought of, too.  :)
    
    
    
    kim

    Odd; that's what *I* thought of when I wrote it. But us
    movie-review-type folks oftentimes like to obscure our references a wee
    bit, to give others the joy of picking up clues. But you're just
    supposed to chortle to yourselves in glee, not let everybody else in on
    it. ;-) [Though if anybody ever does a critique of my critiques, they
    could add a footnote there indicating "Obviously a veiled reference to
    "Falling Down," which, judging by her lack of direct comment on it, the
    critic has never actually seen."]
    
    'course, since I haven't seen "Wolf" either, I suppose it's appropriate
    to discuss it in terms of other movies I haven't seen. Would this be a
    sort of nihilist school of criticism, or is it more deconstructionist?
    
    But what I really want to know is, why didn't they cast Nicholson as
    Lestat?
    
    -b

    >But you're just supposed to chortle to yourselves in glee, not let 
    >everybody else in on it. ;-)
    
    	Whoops!  My mistake - but I'm young, still.  I'll learn myself good
    for next time, you betcha! :-)
    
    >Would this be a sort of nihilist school of criticism, or is it more 
    >deconstructionist?
    
    	A bit of both, but it'd be more of a recursive, nested method -
    referring to referring to itself, etc.  Sort of like "this sentence no
    verb." :-)
    
    >But what I really want to know is, why didn't they cast Nicholson as
    >Lestat?
                                                           
    	What?  WHAT??  No, no, no - I can see Sting, maybe - or Bowie - to
    mention two of the names that have been batted around.  But Jack?  Not
    nearly tall, blond or gaunt enough, imo.  Might as well cast Danny
    DeVito . . .
    
    					- Jimbo

         .3 re Jack Nicholson looking/acting like a werewolf.
    
         The advertisement I saw at the theatre referred to 
    Nicholson as "Jack" which in reality likened him to
    the wolf character in the movie.  Not good marketing here, IMO.
    
    Bill

FWIW, Time magazine this week (or last week) had an extremely glowing review
of "Wolf."  Seems it contains a fair amount of dark humor...

					-- Nina

    NPR's Bill Shales (?sp?) bemoans (behowls?) the length and pacing of     
    the movie, saying "Any werewolf story that can't be told in under two
    hours shouldn't be told at all".
    
    Overall, he gave it a mixed review. Could have been crisper and
    apparently the ending was a bit sloppy. But there were good aspects
    too, like a minimal amount of on-screen gore, i.e., emphasis on the
    characters instead of their blood.
    
      John

>    NPR's Bill Shales (?sp?) bemoans (behowls?) the length and pacing of     

I believe it's Tom Shales (though I'm not sure of the spelling either),
apparently if the LA Times and occasionally (but regularly) NPR.
He's a tough critic to please, he seems to like almost nothing.
Also, his reviews run too long - once he gets his teeth into a movie,
the grinding and tearing continue until his eight minutes are up.

Frankly, I think that if you can't review a movie in three minutes or less, 
you shouldn't review it at all.

- tom]

    
    Siskel & Ebert (sp?) gave it two thumbs upward yesterday.
    
    
    
  

    Well, I saw WOLF this weekend, and have to agree with the review
    described in .11.   It was almost 2hrs/15min - which was about 30
    minutes too long, given many of the plot twists were totally obvious.
    I love Jack, and was able to sit through it only because of him;
    Michelle was fine; James Spader was eh.  Lack of gore was a decided
    plus - some, but not enough to get more than a minor wince from me, and
    I can't stand the sight of blood.  If you like Jack or Michelle, go; I
    suggest waiting for the video so you can fast forward through the
    boring parts.

    I saw this last weekend and I did not like it.  It wasn't suspenceful
    enough, there didn't seem to be any chemistry between  Michelle and
    Jack     Maybe I wasn't in the right frame of mind...   
    SISKEL AND EBERT GAVE IT 2 THUMBS UP    I can't believe that!
    What a mistake...I actually thought it was a lousy movie...
    

    
    re.15
    
    Yep, two big thumbs up.
    
    Honest.
    
    Dave
    

    I saw the movie this weekend it and loved it. Jack Nicholson was great.
    He has some great lines too. Michelle Phieffer was good but not great. 
    I would give two thumbs up.

  I was a bit disappointed by this film. While the movie is entertaining, it
wasn't the block buster that I was expecting after hearing all of the positive
reviews in the press and media.

  As a couple have said earlier, the story tended to drag in parts. Jack
Nicholson was great at times, but other times he just seemed to play "Jaaack"
without a lot of thought as to what his character should be doing. 

  Michelle Phieffer was ok but didn't particularly add anything to the story
other than her usual breathtaking good looks. At one point Jack's character
makes a pretty good speech to her about how there's not much to her character
other than good looks and oddly enough it pretty much summed up most of her
performance. 

  The slow motion jumping around and other attempts at looking like a wolf were
not that good. Yes they did try to pick up the mannerisms of a real wolf rather
than a wolfman but it didn't work all that well. 

  The thing that bothered me the most was that the theme of most wolfman
stories was all but missing except for a brief discussion early in the film.
These stories usually revolve around the main character's struggle between good
and evil. The wolf inside the man is suppose to be a metaphor for the "evil"
that exists in everyone and the ethical battle we all have with ourselves. 

  While this story brushed on that, it was pretty much just a monster story
watered down by the fact that it is no longer politically correct to think of
wolves entirely as bad guys. After all they are just animals trying to carve
out an existence like anyone else. 

  Perhaps that is the new theme. This film is just trying to carve out a box
office take like everyone else. Ok, it wasn't that bad but it certainly wasn't
that great. 

  Since it's summer and since I really like Jack and since I'm in love with
Michelle Phieffer because of her drop dead good looks I'll be generous and give
it: 

  *** on my scale which runs from 0-5.

  George

    
    Capsule review: A little too long, extremely predictable, though the
    moment everyone was expecting still managed to elicit starts and
    shrieks.
    
    The subplot, or secondary theme, or whatever, is the more interesting
    part of this movie -- the impact of a sudden infusion of power on the
    human personality.  It doesn't say anything particularly new in this
    area, basically that with power good people can still be good and bad
    people will probably get worse.
    
    The slight variation on the lycanthropic legend makes for an ending
    with better closure than the more traditional treatments.
    
    Competently acted, with Pfeiffer's closing moments probably being the
    high point.  Nicholson suave, Spader oily.  Someone should have
    tightened the second half of the script.  The slow motion bits were
    tiresome.  It seems to me there ought to be some method of
    demonstrating the impact of witnessing superhuman capability without
    those extremely dorky slow motion shots.
    
    DFW

    I agree totally with the previous review.  Way, way too predictable,
    and that for me spoiled an often stylish and well acted drama.  I
    especially enjoyed the office scenes!  (Believe it or not!)  How Jack
    goes about his business of revenge was wonderful, and the subdued
    excitement of his two fellow workers was just right.  On the other
    hand, Kate Nelligan was wasted, and I didn't believe Michelle
    Pfeiffer's character for a minute.
    
    Despite my reservations, I'd still give it a 6.5 on the 1-10 scale, and
    I would be remiss if I didn't note that my wife liked it more than me.
    
    NAZZ

    I thoroughly enjoyed how the characters gradually acquired the senses
    of the wolf, and how it affected their daily lives. The extremely acute
    senses of smell and hearing were very well done; any dog owner would
    have been able to identify!
    				Jim

    
    I saw the movie lastnight on HBO.  I liked it as a cable movie, but I'm
    gald I didn't go see it.
    
    Question behind spoiler:
    
    
    
    
    Who was the 1s wolf?  I got the impression that the 1st wolf was
    Michelle and then sonewhere along the line she bit the little snob who
    was sleeping w/ Jacks wife - then he bit Jack.
    
    The snob was showing signes of wolfness from the begining - then at the
    end Michelle was a wolf - and she made alot of comments about why she
    cant' tell you what she does for work/a living.
    
    we never saw the snob or Michelle get bit - so we know Jack didn't do
    it.  and I know that the snob was the one to kill the wife...
    
    what do you think?
    
    Lkp

    MHO on -.1, behind spoiler:
    
    <spoiler>
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    <splr>
    
    We never find out who the first wolf is; he's just a stray werewolf
    wandering around New England who Jack has the misfortune to come
    across. I think the transition to wolf was ultimately complete, i.e.,
    you never turned back into a human afterwards.
    
    Jack *did* bite Mr. Snobby, in passing when he came to the guy's
    apartment because he suspected his wife was sleeping with him. So he
    transformed into a werewolf just a bit behind Jack.
    
    The old guy who made a study of Lycanthropes said that "sometimes, the
    passion of the wolf by itself is enough to create a werewolf". My guess
    is that Michelle was thus transformed by the passion shared with Jack.
    Or,since only a bite was required, one could speculate that Jack was a
    bit overly agressive in his amours.
    				JIm