When my wife and daughter go away (to be with Grandma) I tend to go out and see a movie. Since they all stink (locally) and since Made isn't playing here (still!) I have to choose something lame.

Jurassic Park III
Planet of the Apes?

Which is worse, or maybe, which is worse but in a good way? I'm leaning toward Apes because at least with Burton you get great visuals... but then again, I love dinosaurs.

-Andrew

Apes had some great performances too (although most of them were in the Ape camp). Just make to turn off your brain for the surprise ending.

I'd go see Apes just to laugh at the scenes that are supposed to be dramatic. It's a hoot in a bad movie kinda way.

Ok good, I saw the right one then.
Ben... Helena Bonham Carter was absolutely amazing! She blew everyone away when she was simply reacting. Or just in the background acting "normal". A brilliant chimp/Shakespearean actress combo. ;>

That ending was just amazingly bad. Why on Earth did they twist the twist like that? It didn't even remotely make any sense!

Shudder.

Jeff... the first half is fun like that. And I totally agree with you. Then the second half starts and you just want more scenes with Bonham-Carter, or the movie to end, whichever is more convenient for the projectionist.

-Andrew

Why not just rent a DVD that's actually worth seeing instead of forcing yourself to throw away $7 at a multiplex full of crappy choices? Is this some kind of trick question, or am I missing something here?

Well... you're missing something here.

1. I have a child. This means I can't go out to the movies much, so I go when I can. It becomes special because it's "verbotten".

2. Because of #1 my wife and I rent 2-3 DVD's a week.

3. Because of #2, there isn't a DVD I'm really interested in seeing at the moment.

4. I work out of my home. So, I like leaving my home now and then.

5. I generally like good bad movies (and Planet applies), I prefer good movies but bad movies are ok. And, if it's a bad "visually interesting" movie, like Burton (not Richard) movies always are, I prefer a 20 foot screen.

6. I like and actually crave movie theater popcorn. It can't be duplicated at home.

7. It was a $4 matinee.

Good enough?

-Andrew

I rather liked Michael Clarke Duncan in the role of General Attar. Mark Wahlberg played his role with all the personality of a rock, though, and most of the other humans weren't much better.

I still don't understand the ending. The only plausible explanation I can come up with is "the sequel will explain it." It certainly makes no logical sense in the context of the rest of the movie.

It helps if you have read the book to understand the ending.

The book pulls off the same basic idea much better, and with an even additional level of satire.

Ah of course, I should have read the book first. It's my fault then. ;>
Actually, I've been meaning to anyway. Anyone notice that the original book is difficult to find but there's a novelization of the movie everywhere in book stores?

A novelization of a film based on a novel. Ugh.

-Andrew