h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Oh yes, with Penelope Gooseberry.

Just been to see Behind Enema Lines with Gene BigMac-man and Owen Hoysin-sauce. Like a male-bimbo version of Enemy at the Gates. Just another studio rollercoaster ride wuth a recruitment video for the US Navy at the end.

Our first attempt to see 'Vanilla Sky' failed due to unexpected selling out of tickets. So we saw 'Made', a curious film about an a friendship where one guy is as about as irritating as can be. Lt Colombo also appears, having turned to a life of crime. Best seen on video, not worth the effort of going to the cinema - unless you happen to be there and are frantically looking for a 'Plan B'.

Second attempt succeeded. Not sure what to make of VS - not as good as its trailer, but not too bad. Mr Cruise has been better, but then he's been much worse too. Some parts were really good. Loved his reaction to the 'mask' in front of the panel of doctors! Quite an interesting cast list - unusual role for Kurt Russell, much better than his usual stuff. And the seemingly ubiquitous Timothy Spall, and unlikely star if ever there was one.

They showed a trailer for a forthcoming Spielberg movie that I had heard nothing of before, also starring TC: 'Minority Report'. More time paradoxes, don't know whether to get myself worked up looking forward to this one.

The other film I saw went to see in the weekend was Jay & Silent Bob. Nothing unexpected here I think. Best bit were the scenes with Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, poking fun at themselves, while doing a "sequel" to Good Will Hunting (Hunting Season) complete with cameo by Gus Van Sant. Some general fun was had at Ben's expense:

Jay & Bob sneak onto the Miramax set and the security guard is alerted

Security Guard - "Control! Send backup, we've got a ten-seventeen!"

Control - "Dead hooker in Ben Affleck's trailer?"

Security Guard - "No! That's a ten-eighty-one!"

The rest is pretty foul and forgettable - even for a devout Young Ones fan!

You're right, Kurt was pretty good in VS, and I generally don't have a lot of time for him. The ending was a little too Dallas, a little too Deus ex Machina for my liking though. And who the hell was Erin? They kept referring to her but I have no idea who she was!

Hi! I managed two out of three on my weekend list.

First up was 'Training Day': violent, gritty, a plot that stretches belief to the breaking point; but not too predictable, and good performance from the lead characters.

Then, 'Shallow Hal', which was quite enjoyable when we watched it, but led to heated arguments in during our usual post-mortem socialising. Do you do the same with your friends after a film? Personally, I thought although the film touched on interesting issues, it succumbed itself to stereotyping, and was in places patronising.

Missed 'Gosford Park' - I'll have to catch up with that later.

Training Day tomorrow which is also Waitangi Day. It's generally a public holiday, but the depositions hearing for the Steven Wallace case rolls on regardless. So that means I'll be sitting in a courtroom all day. Aah well, it keeps me off the streets.

I generally discuss the films I see with my friends. Our arguments rarely get heated, though, and we generally agree about the films we see. So it's always good to hear a fresh opinion. A 16-yr old Brazilian girl whose aquaintaince I made a few months ago (nothing sordid I assure you ) was of the same opinion as you, saying the film was hypocritical. She also raved about Memento as it happens.

Saw Don't Say a Word and 13 Ghosts. Enjoyed the set design of the latter but not a lot else. Regarding the former, Sean Bean reprises his role from Goldeneye, Jennifer Esposito is totally wasted in a redundant detective plot thread, and Michael Douglas is just as irritating as ever. Famke Janssen (another Goldeneye alumnus) is reasonable as a female version of James Stewart from Rear Window. But the best character is the little girl playing Douglas' daughter - the way she deals with her kidnappers is very amusing.

'Memento' has been out on DVD for some time, and I've toyed with the idea of taking it out for a second viewing, to try to make more sense of it, perhaps by watching the segments in reverse order! Of course, that would be cheating, but I'm put off by the thought that just watching the film again seems like hard work!

Our heated arguments - discussions, if I were a politician - don't become acrimonious. It's kinda fun, even if you think that someone's being particularly dumb. We always just move on - though we sometimes pick up the thread the next day!

I saw 'Chicken Run' again last week. The accents didn't seem so strong. What's happening to me?

Well, well, the Briticisation of Kaeori!

Soon you'll be painting a St George's cross on your face, and travelling to the European continent to brawl with the locals.

So what did the argument revolve aroound? Or is it all lost in a haze?

Well, although as I said I enjoyed 'Shallow Hal', it played too much on stereotypes, and ended up being somewhat patronising. Good-looking people are shallow, ugly / fat people are nice and interesting. People are either good or bad. Looks do/don't matter. Ugly / fat people are insecure. You get the idea...

We kinda drifted into a long 'discussion' about what constitutes shallow (a label frequently pinned on me when it comes to discussing 'intellectual' matters). If you try not to be shallow, does that make you pretentious? You can see how these matters go on and on and on...

But we all love it!

Actually if you think about it was only the ugly/fat women that were insecure. Jack Black & Jason Alexander seemed relatively ok with their portly physiques. So did the Hawaian Peace Corps guy.

So if you're talking about stereotypes, then the deludedly-narcissistic male must surely be one. Comedian Richard Jeni joked about it once, saying that every man, even if he's a badly shaved 500lb gorilla, thinks he's just 6 sit-ups away from a hot tub with Cindy Crawford.

In regards shallow behaviour, it's one thing to accept one's shallowness, but surely it's another to do nothing about it. That is of course if you view superficiality to be bad behaviour.

The characters of Jack and Jason didn't seem to be aware of their less than stunning physiques and average looks. It seems to me that nowadays you meet many men who are very conscious about their appearance. I suppose it's true to say that there are more men than women who don't care at all about how they look.

BTW, in the new enlightened, trial period h2g2 world of allowing links in threads, you might be interested in the latest MiB trailer, shown a few days ago for the first time during the Superbowl:

http://www.comics2film.com/MediaFrame.php?f_id=7

Saw the previous trailer on the big screen before Training Day, along with a trailer for Count of Monte Cristo, which doesn't look too bad.

Training Day, hmmm, I think its fair to say that this is very much a Denzel W vehicle, as he eclipses everything and everyone else with his performance. Except for NZer Cliff Curtis, playing yet another dodgy Hispanic character!

I do like the fact that the story all takes place over a day, though thankfully none of my days are like this.

The story, however implausible, was not as predictable as I'd expected. Come to think of it, 'implausible' is an understatement - though it has been touted by some critics as 'realistic'. It's probably Denzel's character that undermines the realism.

I quite liked Ethan Hawke's role: the enthusiasm, the uncertainty, the dilemmas, the fear, the anger. Wouldn't mind a sequel with that character. And who knows, we might get one - the film was made on a comparatively low budget, and has done quite well for itself.

I'm waiting in the hope that LOTR will overhaul Harry Potter in the box office takings.

The thing I liked was that it wasn't rookie Ethan Hawke who was naive and deluded, it was experienced streetwise Denzel.

However one big thing spoiled the experience for me - the fact that I've been reporting on nothing else but the Steven Wallace depositions hearing for the past three weeks. I'm sure I've mentioned it before but search through http://www.stuff.co.nz if you want to refresh your memory.

There are about six or seven journalists (including yours truly) getting cabin fever from reporting on this case five days a week.

The Shipping News is also out, but I haven't bothered to see what it's about.

'Gosford Park' for me tonight, hopefully. There's a token Yank in the film , so I'll be the token Yank in the audience!

'Monsters Inc' is out this weekend. Looking forward that.

And so you should!

Gosford Park drew the ire of national media when it succeeded at the Golden Globes and Lord of the Rings didn't. Well, not so much the ire, as the dejected pouting.

Sir Ian McKellen tried to mollify the nation in a suitably patronising way, saying not to worry and that there would be other awards shows.

It was delightful, as the Brits would say. If you like Agatha Christie style murder mysteries - then this is *not* the film for you. The murder whodunnit is an aside; all the fun and interest is in the contrast between 'upstairs' and 'downstairs', the unexpected similarities, the ways the two worlds meet, the attitudes. It is so well observed from start to finish, with an excellent cast. Above all stands Maggie Smith, who delights with every nuance of her character. Very enjoyable.

My only criticism would be the role of the inspector played by Steven Fry. It was humorous, but went beyond the bounds of belief. Whereas all the other characters, however grotesque in their stereotype, were believable, Steven Fry's did not seem at all authentic, but more a comic role.

I hope you get to see it soon!

Seems a shame about Stephen. I've been reacquainting myself with his work on "This is David Lander", a six part series from 1988 which satirises investigative journalism programmes. Like Yes Minister before it, TIDL plays it absolutely straight and Stephen Fry is absolutely perfect for the role of the title journalist.

Saw The Shipping News last night. Haven't read the book it was based on. Thought it was a lot like the show Northern Exposure, quirky isolated setting with even quirkier locals but had a suitably dark streak running through it. Thought the journalism references were hilarious, and most of the cast did admirably, especially the ubiquitous Cate Blanchett (but do you hear me complaining?). However I didn't entirely buy Kevin Spacey's performance throughout. At times, I thought I was watching the sarcastic Lester Burnham, which was not the intended or requisite effect.

I'm dying to try a Squid Burger, but I'll pass on the Seal Flipper Pie!

I didn't know what to make of the trailer for 'The Shipping News', other than Judi Dench seems to be just as busy nowadays as Cate Blanchett (in the trailer, the American voiceover put the emphasis wrongly, "BlanCHETT", and even I laughed!). Interestingly, many writers found it easier to describe the cast list of 'Gosford Park' as "everyone except Judi Dench!"

Saw you current favourite, 'Monsters Inc', which was all very pleasant. I loved the little Pixar short film they played before hand; 'For the Birds' was three minutes of wonderful animation - I want it on my computer! The main feature was very enjoyable, probably worth a second viewing to pick up some of the detail. I think Billy Crystal ciould have done more to make himself less like Woody Allen. Nice to see they found time to add outtakes since it opened in the US without them.

Actually the first time I saw it here it was sans outtakes.

"Ta-daa!!!"

I thought the little girl was adorable, and the guys from CDC were hilarious.

Speaking of ubiquitous cast members, Steve Buscemi's first name appears to be "And" because that's how he's often credited.

We've got 'Ocean's 11' coming this week, I think - won't know till tomorrow (Thursday). The Times savaged 'Rollerball' on Monday in it's LA report. Apparantly test screenings went very badly. So, "The film was pulled from release and recut. This then is the polished version. MGM need not have bothered. The film is still a mess. No, worse, it is a disgrace, an aesthetic train wreck of such mind-boggling stupidity and tonal maladroitness that it makes you wonder for the sanity of its makers." Wish I could write as scathingly as that! Don't know if this link will work, but the whole article is at: "http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,585-204390,00.html" (the link is the whole bit in inverted commas, but you may have to copy and paste, as the h2g2 parser seems to be confused by the double comma; once you get there, it's after the review of 'Collateral Damage').