Code 46

[Bill Pryor]

Sort of a 1984 type film. I liked it but my wife thought it was dull. Tim Robbins, Samantha Morton. A BBC production. I always like these types of SF films, but if you're looking for action SF, you wouldn't like it. Except maybe for the brief full (lower torso) frontal nudity of Samantha.

http://www.unitedartists.com/code46/

[RonH]

Code 46 is one of my all-time favorites (in fact, I thought I posted on it here; I'll have to check). Absolutely love the look and feel, a believable future scenario unlike most scifi films. And the dialog is so clever, the way they blended English, Spanish, Japanese, etc. It just flows right out of their mouths in casual conversation, like a Nam vet saying "boo-coo" or a Texan saying "gracias." It had to take some severe practice to get so comfortable.

For some odd reason, I consider this film similar in many aspects to "Lost in Translation." Maybe it's the bleakness of the situation and the really low-key approach. Not a lot of anger going on.

[chris]

Wow, it sure got panned on Netflix. 1.5 stars, that's Gigli territory on Netflix.

[Mr Camera]

I saw a good movie last night on CBC. It was called, "Hope Springs." ---filmed in Hope, BC, of course.

[Bill Pryor]

Yeah, it's not a Netflix favorite. You've got to pay attention, and it's heavy on dialog and voice over, which almost always means a low rating. I think lots of people probably didn't get the futuristic in vitro fertilization schtick. The idea is that in this future society, test tube babies are the norm and it's possible to have all these genetic matches out there, ie., you could be screwing your sister you've never met before who was born in a different lab in another country. So there's a worldwide ban on that kind of thing and you have to get tested, etc., and it's a criminal offense to impregnate anybody who's genetically too close, and if you do they dump you out of the city to scrounge around on you own and try to survive, as well as erase your memories. I simple explanation of all that might have made the film more understandable to more people. The way it's done, you have to pay attention, and actually I watched it a second time and found it better. Most people, though, found it dull.

[RonH]

It's definitely a think piece, and it's got a terrific moody and atmospheric quality about it that I loved. The cityscapes in the shots are as much a part of the film as the actors. I could turn off the sound and just watch the shot compositions and be happy. Incredibly artistic camera work, IMO. Now that we've talked about it, I want to watch it again... I need to buy it.

On the other hand, after years of hearing how bad Gigli was, I finally watched it once (or at least part of it, I can't remember enough to say that I finished it). It was bad, but wasn't much worse than most Ben Affleck movies. Maybe by the time it came out, people had figured out that films starring Ben Affleck are just films with a character who acts exactly like Ben Affleck. (I'm sure there's an exception, but at the moment I can't think of one.) There was so much media saturation about him, J-Lo (and her butt), his gambling addiction, and the big champagne-colored engagement ring that probably any project he was in then was doomed.

[Bill Pryor]

Actually, there is one good Ben Affleck film. I can't think of the name of it offhand--it's the one where he plays the guy who played Superman in the old films. He actually acted in it.

[RonH]

Good call. I've only seen parts of that one, and would like to see it in it's entirety. I've enjoyed several films he was in, but I got so over-saturated with the celebrity hype that it turned me against him. But still, he usually plays the same character, whether it's Armageddon or Jersey Girl.

[yagfxg33k]

Yeah that was Hollywoodland about how Reeves looked like he was murdered. Dunno if it was accurate or not. Good flick tho.

[Bill Pryor]

I think maybe it was post-J-Lo as well, which might explain a better performance from him. After a night with her I wouldn't be able to function either.