TV's Frink said:

SilverWook said:

I think they actually covered her up a bit with CGI for the trailers.

Sort of potentially maybe NSFW-ish

I'm gonna have to see this movie I guess...

greenpenguino said:

SilverWook said:

Wow, why couldn't George make Padme this lifelike and smoking hot? ;)

Because George is a crappy writer. Simples

Even if you hate Star Wars and Indiana Jones, he still wrote Willow, THX 1138, American Graffiti, and Captain EO. GL may be a lot of things but he's not a crappy writer in my opinion.

Back on topic, how many people have seen this and it is worth seeing (beyond seeing Natalie Portman naked)

Depends on your taste in humor. This movie frequently aims for the low end of crude humor spectrum. (It's too easy to constantly drop the F word for a punchline sometimes.) I was hoping for something along the lines of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which it isn't. There hasn't been a lot of sword and sorcery comedy done since then.

I did get a several good laughs out of it in spite of things. I have a strange sense of humor though! Can't tell you my favorite line without spoiling it. I've been quoting it for days now...

It's also pushing the envelope of it's R rating in several places. (And there's a lot of nudity, but not from Natalie, just so you know!) Had a PG-13 cut been imposed, it probably wouldn't work at all. Can't say more without major plot spoilage. (Holy Grail is practically a PG film by today's standards.) You're never going to see this on basic cable uncut if at all!

On the plus side, it's got some great FX sequences which seem inspired by some of Ray Harryhausen's films. This almost could have been an interesting tongue in cheek fantasy epic had they not been going for outright comedy. I bet somebody does a fan edit down the road!

It will probably hit the bargain theaters pretty soon, and be on video by late summer.

Thanks for the review, I think I'll wait to rent it. It certainly looks like it could be funny.

Even with all the severed limbs, gallons of blood spurting, and bunny related gore? The MPAA was more lenient in the 70's than I thought!

Or else I'm thinking of Life of Brian...

PG-13 wasn't adopted till '84, thanks to Spielberg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_rating_system#The_PG-13_rating_is_adopted

ChainsawAsh said:

No one would see a movie like 2001 today if it was released with a G rating (which it was in 1968) - they'd send their kids to see it, sure, but they'd think "Oh, it's rated G, it's made for kids, not me."

I would LOVE to see the faces of today's kiddies coming out of the theater just after seeing "2001: A Space Odyssey"

^LOL!

ChainsawAsh said:

Also, anyone interested in the topic should check out the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated.  Very good, and very enlightening.

Great movie - very frustrating. 
It's unreal to me how much violence can be in a PG13 movie, but throw in something sexual and BAM it's rated R or worse.

Leonardo said:

I would LOVE to see the faces of today's kiddies coming out of the theater just after seeing "2001: A Space Odyssey"

I saw it in the theater in 1968 when I was 8 years old.  So did all of my friends. Most of us liked it, some of us a lot, despite our being admittedly somewhat confused by it. I don't remember any one of us disliking it. I don't think the same would be true today.  In fact, I'm not sure many of today's kids would even make it through the whole thing.  Which is a shame because it remains the truest depiction of being in space, and an artistic masterpiece.  It also has a far better image than today's digitally-made movies (at least that's true for the restored version).

I don't know a single 8 year old who would sit through ten minutes of that movie, let alone the whole thing.  For that matter, I don't know a whole lot of adults who would either.  A lot of people go to movies to relax and be entertained, not to use their brains, and while I'm sure the case was the same back then, in 68 those effects would have been highly entertaining to those who didn't care about the rest of the movie.  It's too bad there aren't a lot of smart movies today that are also big budget extravaganzas. 

I saw 2010 for the first time a couple years ago.  Just terrible.

2010 wasn't THAT bad...

greenpenguino said:

2010 wasn't THAT bad...

Just like Godfather III wasn't that bad, but in the context of its predecessor, it pales in comparison.

on-subject edit:

RedFive said:

I don't know a single 8 year old who would sit through ten minutes of that movie, let alone the whole thing.  For that matter, I don't know a whole lot of adults who would either.  A lot of people go to movies to relax and be entertained, not to use their brains, and while I'm sure the case was the same back then, in 68 those effects would have been highly entertaining to those who didn't care about the rest of the movie.  It's too bad there aren't a lot of smart movies today that are also big budget extravaganzas. 

I saw 2010 for the first time a couple years ago.  Just terrible.

You are aware a certain segment of the audience was consuming something a little stronger than what you could get at the snack counter while watching the movie back then? ;)

The making of 2001 paperback mentions the incidents where someone in the theater got a little too deep into the film!