Hacker Cinema
Anaconda
1997 · Film · 90 min
Directed by Luis Llosa
A 'National Geographic' film crew is taken hostage by an insane hunter, who takes them along on his quest to capture the world's largest — and deadliest — snake.
1 positive1 neutralfrom 2 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
2 comments on Hacker News
I remember names, I remember faces, just fine. What I miss is the ability to tie them together. Especially people I haven't smelled in a while or at all.
My wife is a bit worse; she gets names mixed up but in a deep way. So when we watch a movie she'll insist (fr example) that we're seeing Robin Williams in "Anaconda", he's the same guy was in "Mission Impossible"... or "You know, the guy that was Gimili and Sallah in Indiana Jones, Dom DeLuise."
She'll come out with something like that; I know she's talking about someone else, and can bring the face to mind; but not the name. or vice versa.
Makes for fun discussions about "what we want to watch tonight," and the occasional pause a movie to go track down who someone is and where we saw them before.
> I notice in Ebert's reviews an appreciation of films as mere entertainment in cases where is what they intend to be, and an appreciation of films as art if that is what they aspire to. In fact, one of my annoyances at his (often excellent) reviews is that he seemed to apply consciously lowered standards when he thought that a film wasn't aiming too high, which led to him recommending films that were close to mediocre, because they hit the mark they were aiming for. There is a certain integrity in this, of course.
I think he did a great job voicing his own standard, which I think makes a lot of sense, in his review of Shaolin Soccer (https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/shaolin-soccer-2004):
> "Shaolin Soccer" is like a poster boy for my theory of the star rating system. Every month or so, I get an anguished letter from a reader wanting to know how I could possibly have been so ignorant as to award three stars to, say, "HIDALGO" while dismissing, say, "Dogville" with two stars. This disparity between my approval of kitsch and my rejection of angst reveals me, of course, as a superficial moron who will do anything to suck up to my readers.
> What these correspondents do not grasp is that to suck up to my demanding readers, I would do better to praise "Dogville." It takes more nerve to praise pop entertainment; it's easy and safe to deliver pious praise of turgid deep thinking. It's true, I loved "Anaconda" and did not think "The United States of Leland" worked, but does that mean I drool at the keyboard and prefer man-eating snakes to suburban despair?
> Not at all. What it means is that the star rating system is relative, not absolute. When you ask a friend if "Hellboy" is any good, you're not asking if it's any good compared to "Mystic River," you're asking if it's any good compared to "The Punisher." And my answer would be, on a scale of one to four, if "Superman" (1978) is four, then "Hellboy" is three and "The Punisher" is two. In the same way, if "American Beauty" gets four stars, then "Leland" clocks in at about two.
> And that is why "Shaolin Soccer," a goofy Hong Kong action comedy, gets three stars. It is piffle, yes, but superior piffle. If you are even considering going to see a movie where the players zoom 50 feet into the air and rotate freely in violation of everything Newton held sacred, then you do not want to know if I thought it was as good as "Lost in Translation."