catmydogs
Joined Dec 2003
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews12
catmydogs's rating
The reputation of "2010" as an inferior film is unfair, as viewed upon its own merits, it is really an exceptional film. The effects are great, the humanistic story is very solid, and acting is wonderful all-around. This is also a faithful rendition of the Clarke novel.
Compare "2010" to other hard sci-fi films of the past 30 years, and you'll probably realise this is one of the top ten during that period. Miles better than Moon or Sunshine or Intrastellar, Europa Report, or the Solaris remake.
While I still consider "2001" as the best sci-fi film of all time, "2010" is a very worthy sequel that manages to paid homage to the original while making the story more accessible. Not an easy feat, and kudos to Peter Hyams the director for doing such a great job!
Compare "2010" to other hard sci-fi films of the past 30 years, and you'll probably realise this is one of the top ten during that period. Miles better than Moon or Sunshine or Intrastellar, Europa Report, or the Solaris remake.
While I still consider "2001" as the best sci-fi film of all time, "2010" is a very worthy sequel that manages to paid homage to the original while making the story more accessible. Not an easy feat, and kudos to Peter Hyams the director for doing such a great job!
Sofia Coppola did something magical with Virgin Suicides and Lost in Translation.
This film, however, is dull and conventional. There's Bill Murray playing a rich, perfect version of himself that everyone likes. He has a few fun scenes, but that's it. The story has nothing new to say and doesn't even have the wide-eyed magical glow of Lost in Translation to say it with.
On the Rocks is not a bad film. It's just very average, about marriage problems, so it gets an average score, and I guarantee you'll forget most everything about it soon after you watch it.
This film, however, is dull and conventional. There's Bill Murray playing a rich, perfect version of himself that everyone likes. He has a few fun scenes, but that's it. The story has nothing new to say and doesn't even have the wide-eyed magical glow of Lost in Translation to say it with.
On the Rocks is not a bad film. It's just very average, about marriage problems, so it gets an average score, and I guarantee you'll forget most everything about it soon after you watch it.
I had the pleasure of watching this film with live organ music at the National Gallery of Art in Washington DC on April 26, 2008. It was absolutely hilarious, just a great slapstick comedy in which an otherwise dull and ordinary professor suddenly finds himself escorting three different women to the same ritzy dance/dining hall. The film ends with a classic chase sequence in which everyone in the plot shows up angry and wants a piece of the professor! A young Reginald Denny plays the hapless professor and resembles a young Maurice Chevalier, who actually would have done pretty well in the part, too! If this delightful film ever makes it to DVD, be sure to check it out. It's at least as funny as Chaplin's The Circus or any number of Keaton features.
