Thanks Nancy
I will ASAP, I am also a  fan of Pacino - he can do no wrong.  The Making of Richard converted me long
ago.  He has great presence..
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Nancy Gish
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: movies

Yes, the "Merchant of Venice" with Pacino is brilliant, as is he.  I did
not even recognize it was Pacino at first, and I'm a Pacino fan.  Do see

Without giving away anything, one particularly dumb objection I heard
to "Ladies in Lavender" was the absence of any explanation for what
happens in the opening.  It's mythic and stunning--not simplistic

>>> [log in to unmask] 4/10/2006 2:10 pm >>>
Thanks for Ladies in Lavender  this I will add to my movies -to- be-
seen -when -next -in -the- free -world.
With those two it is hard to go wrong. (not forgetting Vanessa
Has anyone seen Al Pacino in Merchant of Venice?  - I was told of it

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Nancy Gish
  To: [log in to unmask]
  Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 5:58 PM
  Subject: Re: movies

  I agree with this list except for "Brokeback Mountain," which was, I
think, magnificent, complex, and beautiful.  The buzz was entirely
deserved, and I think it should have been best picture.  "Crash" was
good but, on reflection, it took a serious topic and scattered it so
much that you could not really care much about any individual character,
and the very important issue became a bit too obvious after a while.
I'm not denying its impact.

  Another film I think was one of the best, not only of this year but
of all my experience, was "Ladies in Lavender" with Maggie Smith and
Judy Dench.  I think it was ignored and dismissed because it was about
the poignant discovery of desire in an old woman who had never
experienced it.  We are all expected to take seriously the notion that
gorgeous very young women will swoon over Jack Nicholson or Bill Murray,
but this very delicate, intelligent, and incredibly well acted film was
just ignored.  I never see films twice, but that one I did, and I went
back to see it a third time just to watch Judi Dench's face--every
slight expression can wrench the heart in both those women--but The
Movies was closed for the only time in my memory.

  >>> [log in to unmask] 04/10/06 10:36 AM >>>
  Here are some of the better films to come out last
  year, revised to fit your search ("thoughtful(but not
  violent) and... romantic(when well done), and comedy
  only when extremely well done."):

  2046 (dir. Wong Kar-Wai)
  BROKEN FLOWERS (dir. Jim Jarmusch)
  CINDERELLA MAN (dir. Ron Howard)
  THE CONSTANT GARDENER (dir. Fernando Meirelles)
  CRASH (dir. Paul Haggis)
  DER UNTERGANG (dir. Oliver Hirschbiegel) -- some
  GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK (dir. George Clooney)
  GRIZZLY MAN (dir. Werner Herzog)
  IN HER SHOES (dir. CURTIS HANSON) -- comedy
  JUNEBUG (dir. Phil Morrison)
  LA MARCHE DE L'EMPEREUR (dir. Luc Jacquet)
  MAD HOT BALLROOM (dir. Marilyn Agrelo) -- a comic
  MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA (dir. Rob Marshall)
  MUNICH (dir. Steven Spielberg) -- some violence
  NINE LIVES (dir. Rodrigo Garcia)
  WALK THE LINE (dir. James Mangold)

  By the way, I was sorry to see your comments on the
  new version of PRIDE & PREJUDICE. I'm afraid you've
  fallen prey to that common fallacy * that a good
  adaptation should accurately duplicate everything in
  the book. This fallacy forgets that the media of
  literature and film use completely different (IMO)
  forms of communication, and has produced what we might
  call the "stagey" style of film. I believe a great
  adaptation is one that captures what is going on in
  the work of fiction and faithfully re-creates that in
  terms of film. I liked both versions of the PRIDE &
  PREJUDICE films very much (1995 and 2005), but found
  the new one far superior as a film. You are right that
  Keira did not deserve her nomination, but there were
  unfortunately quite few excellent performances from
  lead actresses this past year. Otherwise, the only
  other nomination I was aware of was for the film's
  score, which is quite fine and deserving of its
  From your choices below, I would go with GOOD NIGHT,
  is quite interesting, but not nearly as successful as
  the buzz would have you believe.

  All best wishes,

  >   Kate Troy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
  >     I called my husband on the cell phone yesterday
  > while out during the day and asked what he wanted to
  > do during the evening, as we had no plans.  He said
  > that he already took care of that, that he had went
  > to the video store and took out the new Pride and
  > Prejudice that had just come out on video that I had
  > been longing to see.  Well, it was very sweet of my
  > husband, but it was an extremely poor, pathetic
  > adaptation, and I can't believe that it had been
  > nominated for Academy Awards.  The one before this
  > one, I really loved, the one before that was great
  > also, and the book best of all, but this film was
  > simply awful.  And, this is truth, and not politics.
  > My husband asked me today what I wanted to see the
  > next time he was at the video store, and I couldn't
  > make up my mind between Good Night and Good Luck and
  > that mountain film, Broback Mountain, I think it's
  > called.  Anyone have any great suggestion, keeping
  > in mind that I like thoughtful(but not violent) and
  > that I like romantic(when well done), and comedy
  > only when extremely well done.
  >     Regards,
  >     Kate

  Do You Yahoo!?
  Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around