Conference bookie::movies

    
    Seems like the only 'super-hero' movies that actually do well at the
    box office are the ones that depict heroes with a somewhat darker side,
    like Batman, The Crow and Robocop.  Compared with the Superman movies,
    I think Batman made 100x the money ( I may have missed a few zeroes )
    :-).  I guess Truth, Justice and The American Way don't attract us
    quite as much as Revenge and Black Humor: The American Way.
    
    	I won't even mention the Captain America movie ( the movie that
    might actually supercede Plan 9 as The Worst Ever ;-) ).  Whoops!  I
    mentioned it . . .
    
    	At any rate, I know *I'm* looking forward to The Shadow . . .
    
    						- Jimbo

    You mentioned the Superman movies from what 8 or 10 years ago?
    That was THE first of the Superhero movies  that was done  wasn't it?
    Seemed like it was done perfectly....Christopher Reeves WAS Superman 
    and I really liked the first 2 or 3 he made of the series....
    I thought it made alot* of money.....maybe not as much as the
    darker characters  ie  Batman.... but there was also a long span
    of time  between  our Superhero's coming to the screen..maybe
    that had something to do with it...
    
    Well the darker characters are more colorful or have more depth
    to them????  don't you think?  
    
    The Shadow should be a Terrific flick from  what I've seen of the
    previews on the tv...... Alec Baldwin in a cape and mask!?
    oh my heart be still....
    
    

    re - .1
    
    	Yeah, the time span may have had something to do with it ( although
    I'd be more prone to think that Jack Nicholson, Michelle Pfieffer and
    Danny DeVito did :-) )
    
    	From what I know of The Shadow, he isn't a cape n' mask kind of
    hero - "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men??  The
    Shuh-adoowww  Knows!!!"  And with the ability to cloud men's minds 
    ( whatever the heck that means, exactly ) he'd hardly need the mask :-)
    
    	He *is* a dark character, regardless ( no pun intended )
    
    					- Jim

    Who knows what evil jerks...
    

    In the previews  it showed him turning into a caped and masked
    entity....thats where I got that from.....

    re -.1
    
    	ahhhhhh... Hollywood. :-)
    
    					- Jim

    Saw this over the weekend.  Looks really great, and some neat special
    effects.  Unfortunately, they seem not to have had any time or money
    for plot or script.  I was really annoyed throughout, that they had
    wasted such potential.
    
    A friend says they've rewritten the origins of the Shadow.  I wouldn't
    know, but conceptually the film version is interesting (even if they
    muddled the details).  Their story is that Lamont Cranston wound up in
    Tibet "after the war" and became an early drug kingpin.  The premise is 
    that, having been such a rotten guy, Cranston truly knows what evil
    lurks in the hearts of men.  That part, I like.  The mechanics of his
    redemption were badly handled.  The Tulku, a holy man, has him
    kidnapped and tells him, "You will redeem your sorry existence, whether
    you want to or not, 'cause I'm going to make you."
    
    The whole movie is like this.  They have some interesting premises, but
    they never really explore them.  Instead of getting into some of the
    interesting facets of the characters, they move the plot basically by
    fiat -- "Okay, the hero encounters the damsel.  Okay, the bad guy
    kidnaps the damsel's father.  Okay, the hero finds out what the bad guy
    wants with the father.  Okay, the hero confronts the bad guy and the
    bad guy escapes."  These are clearly characters manipulated by a
    script, not living, thinking individuals brought to life on the screen.
    
    If great atmosphere and special effects are enough for you, go see it. 
    Otherwise, it's probably not worth your while.

    
    I must agree with .7  A lot of unexplored potential.
    
    You would think that it would be difficult not to make an exciting
    movie out of The Shadow, whose raison d'etre is to scare the hell
    out of bad guys before blowing fist-sized holes in them, but apparently
    the character has the ability to cloud director's minds as well. 
    Russell Mulcahy, in a recent Starlog interview, said that all previous
    attempts at bringing The Shadow to the screen numbered among the most
    boring movies ever made.  Well, morphing technology may have jazzed
    things up a bit, but otherwise, Russ, your Shadow ain't nothin' to
    write home about in the excitement department, either.
    
    The really painful thing about this movie is its few shining moments. 
    If Alec Baldwin had been given a better script this could have rescued
    his career (I wonder if he kicks himself every night for giving up Jack
    Ryan).  When he delivers that "Did you think *I* wouldn't *know*" line
    in the Shadow's first appearance you really get the sense that these
    villians are in for a world of hurt.
    
    But he doesn't get to do that enough.  Most of his lines as Lamont
    Cranston are offhand and seem more modern-day oily than Jazz Age
    sophisticate.  I mean, we're talking about a script where Jonathan
    Winters, Peter Boyle, and Tim Curry *combined* didn't manage to be
    funny *once*.  You gotta work at something like that.  This combined
    with Mulcahy, a director with pretty good visual sense (nobody does
    flying glass like him) and absolutely no sense of storytelling made for
    a film that plods.  Any story you get from Mulcahy comes out of the
    script, and even then all those visuals can slow it down.
    
    Worth seeing on the big screen at matinee price if you're in the mood
    to go to an art museum but your feet hurt from walking around a mall. 
    Otherwise, wait for the video.
    
    

    I suppose, just for trivia's sake, that Russell Mulcahy was a music
    video director before hitting the big screen (with films like
    "Razorback", about renegade killer pigs.  I saw it. :)  
    
    Might explain his good visual sense/bad storytelling sense.
    
    
    kim

    I saw this one over the weekend too. Definitely not much of a story.
    Definitely lots of good visuals. They did a really fine job of bringing
    the '30s alive. Actually I'm not sure I'd recommend the video. All the
    good action is best seen on the big screen -- at matinee prices.
    
    Does anybody remember the name they gave to that fancy knife?
    
      John

I saw it at a Saturday matin�e and had forgotten I'd
been to the movies (literally!) by Saturday night.

This film needed a better screenplay to be a winner.  
That's sort of a stupid statement, I know, but it had
such terrific production values and F/X, and a very
capable cast (except P.A. Miller, who is an unknown
quantity to me).  What it didn't have was a decent story,
dialogue, and character development.  I was engaged 
by the production but embarrassed for the actors.  The 
most interesting "character" was the knife. And as 
someone said earlier, not a single laugh!

Alec Baldwin, Ian McKellen (his agent should be shot
unless he got a LOT of money for this part), John Lone, 
and Tim Curry deserved better.

By the way, can someone remind me why they needed an
Insect Wrangler on this shoot?  I can't remember any
insects.