| Author |
Message |
    
James (James)
Production Assistant
Username: James
Post Number: 307
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Monday, November 05, 2007 - 09:40 am: | 
|
Nicola
I agree about Denzel being almost possibly miscast, he really didn't seem like he was from poverty. I feel that mostly he never really drew anything whereas at least Crowe seemed to try to draw something off of close to almost nothing. Which is a pity had promise to be a knockout and it ended up not even being remotely close to a sucker-punch.
Kathy
I am sure Denzel will probably get an Oscar nod for this performance and if they run Crowe in the Supporting Actor race it will be another big case of category fraud. It would be just as worse of a category fraud issue as it was with Ethan Hawke (Training Day and Jamie Foxx (Collateral). |
Nicola_D (Nicola_d)
Key Grip
Username: Nicola_d
Post Number: 722
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 05, 2007 - 04:10 pm: |
|
I don't know about an Oscar nod. I think they may just cancel each other out. There are so many better performances elsewhere this year. As far as American Gangster is concerned, I think only Josh Brolin gave a standout performance, albeit a very small one. |
Kathy (Kk1024)
Cinematographer
Username: Kk1024
Post Number: 1908
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Monday, November 05, 2007 - 04:42 pm: |
|
IMO Crowe's was too meek a role for Oscar consideration.
The BA prelimiary list is:
Daniel Day Lewis - There Will Be Blood
Johnny Depp - Sweeny Todd
Tom Hanks Charlie Wilson
James McAvoy - Atonement
Denzel
If I were a betting person (which I am), I would guess (sight unseen on four of the performances) that this list is very close to accurate. |
AdamL (Adaml)
Cinematographer
Username: Adaml
Post Number: 2219
Registered: 08-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 05, 2007 - 07:41 pm: |
|
Switch Clooney for Denzel!
Anyone seen The Lookout. Best film I've seen this year to date. Loved it. |
Kathy (Kk1024)
Cinematographer
Username: Kk1024
Post Number: 1909
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Monday, November 05, 2007 - 10:01 pm: |
|
Gone Baby Gone - Riveting directorial debut by Ben Affleck!!!! |
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 4025
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Monday, November 05, 2007 - 10:25 pm: |
|
"What's the rumpus?"
-Miller's Crossing (1990): Rich gangster drama with that quintisential Coen quirk features a magnificently moody Gabriel Byrne as Tom Regan, a second-hand man to a prohibition-era crime boss (Albert Finney) who's making time on the side with the big guy's moll (Marcia Gay Harden, in her film debut), who's only boinking the old man to keep her skeevy brother (John Turturro, in his first Coen role) from getting whacked by a rival gang lord (a bombastic Jon Polito in his first Coen role) because of his embezzling ways. The film's plot is an insanely complex snake's nest of twists, turns, reversals, and double-crosses (keeping it all straight gave the Coens such a raging case of writer's block that it inspired the screenplay of their next picture, Barton Fink), yet despite how "thick" it gets, the superb cast, the Coens' endlessly quotable vernacular ("I was just speculating on a hypothosis", "Take yer flunky and dangle"), Barry Sonnenfeld's gorgeous cinematography (his last job for the Coens) and Carter Burwell's lilting musical score keep it barrelling right along, with some of the Coens' most exciting setpieces (particularly the unforgettable "Danny Boy" sequence, later referenced in Kill Bill Vol. 1) and a killer of a final shot. This is a film that's dense and tough to follow on a first viewing, but reveals more and more narrative and visual riches with each subsequescent viewing. One of the dynamic duo's finest movies. Look fast for an unbilled Frances McDormand as a secretary and Spider-Man director Sam Raimi as a cop who gets blown away during a massive shootout sequence. A
And you're doing it for nothing! Killing me's not going to bring back your goddamn honey!
|
kiwiboy (Lighthouse_boy)
Movie Star
Username: Lighthouse_boy
Post Number: 3258
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 05, 2007 - 11:24 pm: |
|
for those who saw American Gangster, there is a scene where they are putting various photos on a tackboard and I swear one of those pic is a pic to Nicholas Cage from that movie where is a cop and married to Rosie Perez but loves Bridget Fonda. I was wondering if it was just an inside joke.
back to New Zealand in December
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 4029
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 06, 2007 - 10:20 pm: |
|
In Theaters:
-American Gangster: Handsome gangster epic can't quite manage to distinguish itself from countless other examples of it's genre, despite Ridley Scott's typically lush visual style and fine performances by Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe. Oh, make no mistake, this is consistently watchable and entertaining (and features a crackerjack police-raid-on-a-drug-den setpiece), yet Washington's crime bigwig lacks the feral ferocity of Al Pacino's Tony Montana and the sympathy of Pacino's Carlito Brigante. Despite the obligitory "shocking" bursts of violence, Denzel is just too damn stalwart to believe as a ruthless baddie (although he's more convincing this time around than he was in the grossly overrated Training Day). Crowe is also tough to believe as a schlubby boy scout cop who puts together Washington's rise to power (not helped by a hit-and-miss New Yawk accent). So, well-crafted, never less than watchable, somewhat engrossing, but not top-tier stuff either for Scott or in the gangster genre. B+
-On DVD:
"I WILL SHOW YOU THE LIFE OF THE MIND...!"
-Barton Fink (1991): Bizarre (even by Coen standards) little mood piece about a playwright (John Turturro) who's given a chance to move to Hollywood and write a B wrestling picture, but finds himself suffering from a raging case of writer's block, not helped any by the oddball salesman (John Goodman) in the hotel room next door, the endlessly-peeling wallpaper, or the J.D. Salinger-esque rummy novelist (John Mahoney) he tries to shake down for ideas. Agonizingly stuffy and pretentious, Barton Fink is the sole Coen Bros. movie that doesn't grow better with multiple viewings, remaining a puzzling collection of self-aware vignettes that never amounts to much of anything. Spike Jonze's Adaptation was a far more eloquent (and funny) look into metafiction and the mental blocks that can ensue when the presure's on the deliver the Next Big Thing. Oh, Barton is brilliantly visualized (by new Coen DP Roger Deakins) and has some fine work by Turturro and Goodman, yet it's my least-favorite entry in the Coen filmography. B-
And you're doing it for nothing! Killing me's not going to bring back your goddamn honey!
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 4030
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 07, 2007 - 11:56 am: |
|
"You know, for kids!"
-The Hudsucker Proxy (1994): Delightful throwback to the hyper-caffineated screwball comedies of the 30's and 40's features a dryly hilarious Tim Robbins as Norville Barnes, a likably dim schmoe woking in the basement of Hudsucker Industries circa 1958 who gets promoted to the very top when compnay CEO Waring Hudsucker (Charles Durning) makes his way to the very bottom via a leap out the window from the 44th floor. Why on earth would fellow company bigwig Syndey J. Mussburger (Paul Newman) want an inexperienced patsy running the company? So they can wait until Norville's bumbling causes the company stock to plummet and allow Sydney and his fellow investors to snap it up cheap. Meanwhile, fast-talkin' reporter Amy Archer (Jennifer Jason Leigh, doing her best Katherine Hepburn/Rosalind Russell dialogue machine-gun impersonation) goes undercover as Norville's new secretary in order to get to the bottom of the whole sordid mess, not counting on actually falling for the genial hick, who has an deceptively simple idea that could potentially save the company (I don't want to spoil it, but anyone who's seen the DVD cover art has already had it spoiled anyways). The Coen Bros. (who co-wrote the screenplay with fellow cult director Sam Raimi, who would later reference the film in the first Spider-Man) craft a breathless, ingeneously-designed wind-up toy of a comedy, filled with spectacular sets by Dennis Gassner and a suitably grandiose score by Carter Burwell (with ample assistance from Aram Khatachturian), as well as agreeably broad performances from the entire cast (Robbins and Leigh have a nice, puppy-ish appeal together, and Leigh has never been more attractive). A notorious box office flop when initially released (with producer Joel Silver giving the brothers a then-whopping $40 million to realize their lavish vision, and only making about $3 million of that back), Hudsucker now fits comfortably into the Coens' cracked filmography, with plenty of whimsy, clever wordplay, and skewed weirdness to appease their fans. B+
And you're doing it for nothing! Killing me's not going to bring back your goddamn honey!
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 4032
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 07, 2007 - 10:28 pm: |
|
"Oh dear, he's fleeing the interview...!"
-Fargo (1996): Exquisitely perfect little black-comic gem about a squirmy Minnesota car salesman named Jerry Lundergaard (William H. Macy) who arranges the kidnapping of his wife in order to con some money out of her old man (Harve Presnell). The two kidnappers he's put into contact with (Steve Buscemi, Peter Stormare), however, manage to kill a police officer and two witnesses while transporting their captive to a secure location. The killing spree brings in the massively pregnant police chief Marge Gunderson (the wonderful Frances McDormand) to investigate, and Jerry finds himself growing more and more agitated and desperate as his well-laid plan keep unravelling in increasingly violent ways. Of all the Coen bros's films, Fargo offers the smoothest blend between it's bursts of violence leavened with comic business that comes flying off the screen with unexpected left hooks. And there's also many fascinating character vignettes to chew over; Jerry's apopleptic reactions to Marge's routine questions, an old high school aquanintance of Marge's putting the moves on her during a memorably awkward lunch date, the deliciously deadpan framing of a breakfast scene where we see Marge's genial lump of a husband (John Carroll Lynch) eating breakfast as she waddles out to her police cruiser, only to re-enter the house a few moments later asking for the jumper cables. Fargo is a real meal, and despite the cartooney accents and heightened sense of the surreal, it's also one of the most human films the Coens have ever made, with their usual yummy visual sheen (with dazzling, snow-choked cinematogrsphy by Roger Deakins and a haunting Carter Burwell score) in evidence as always. One of the definitive films of the 1990's. A
And you're doing it for nothing! Killing me's not going to bring back your goddamn honey!
|
Guynoir (Guynoir)
Cinematographer
Username: Guynoir
Post Number: 1530
Registered: 02-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 01:11 am: |
|
Monty--That's a Faulkner-esque writer in Barton Fink, not Salinger-esque. With that white mustache, John Mahoney's a dead ringer for the great Southern writer--who did a fair share of screenwriting back in the 30s and 40s (To Have and Have Not and The Big Sleep are but two of Faulkner's classic credits). Fink remains the most ambitious Coen film--and is to me one of their best.
From the trailer, it looks as if No Country is closer in tone to Miller's Crossing than to the recent efforts from Joel and Ethan. A good thing, I think--considering their post-Lebowski comedies have been less and less funny. |
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 4034
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 08:34 am: |
|
Personally, I found their post-Lebowski comedies to be underrated, but I'll get to those in due time. 
And you're doing it for nothing! Killing me's not going to bring back your goddamn honey!
|
R_Kane (R_kane)
Production Assistant
Username: R_kane
Post Number: 177
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 02:47 pm: |
|
There was some discussion on this topic some time back about whether or not “Duck Soup” has stood the test of time and is still funny. I used to think that “Duck Soup” was the best Marx Brothers movie ever; but I had not seen it in probably 30 years. I watched it again a few months ago, and I am sorry to admit that most of it is not very good. The “mirror scene” between Groucho and Harpo is still hilarious, but most of the rest of the movie is mired in comic conventions that no longer resonate well, such as Harpo running around cutting off men’s neckties. Groucho’s one-liners (e.g., “We’re fighting for this woman’s honor, which is more than she’s ever done!”) are still among the best, but verbal comedy—especially literate verbal comedy—is wasted on today’s human species population, to whom “fuck” is a noun, a verb, an adjective and a general-purpose place-holding word.
This led me to wonder if all movie comedies are time-sensitive. I watched “Some Like It Hot” and “The Bank Dick,” and concluded they are not necessarily so. While the vocabulary of film has expanded and altered over the decades, and it is clear during what era these films were made, they still remain as two of the funniest movies of all time. T me, “The Bank Dick” is still the funniest movie I have ever seen.
However, I recently saw another old film that initially enchanted me, but ultimately repulsed me. Featuring the music of the most popular composing team in history, the Gershwin brothers, directed by Stanly Donen and starring Fred Astaire and Audrey Hepburn, “Funny Face” should be one for the ages. Instead, it’s one that shamed me for having originally liked it. The Technicolor is richly-saturated, the production design striking, and story stupid and initially amusing, but then: Audrey Hepburn, so magnetic that you cannot take your eyes off her, allegedly falls for Fred Astaire, who, though dashing and dapper and lithe as a panther is clearly 30 years her senior even beneath his dyed hair, and you wince and feel unclean. And then they go to Paris, where Astaire dances amazingly well for a man nearly 60, but, in the background we see two lovers quarrel, and the spat gets resolved when the man slaps the woman and she smiles and falls into his arms. And then Hepburn gets involved with a French professor and a jealous Asaire spurts, :”He’s about as interested in your mind as I am!” . . . and, again, you feel unclean.
So what I conclude is there are some narrative and/or comedic conventions that were creatures of their time and culture that, while not current, retain their entertaining magic (e.g., W. C. Fields wringing humor out of alcohol consumption although today we know alcoholism is no laughing matter), and some that do not (e.g., degredation of women, racism). |
AdamL (Adaml)
Cinematographer
Username: Adaml
Post Number: 2220
Registered: 08-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 03:51 pm: |
|
Interesting post R Kane and I am heartened by your comments on Duck Soup, which I found incredibly juvenile and not particularly clever slapstick. Clearly Groucho Marx was incredibly witty and has some very clever one-liners but Duck Soup did not play well at all for me and I certainly did wonder whether all these film guides that rank it as 4 stars had sat down and rewatched it recently. There seems to be an old film bias in these books that is decidedly unfair. I don't know if Halliwell's Film Guide is printed in the States or not but it's the best one I've found over here and there are as many 4 star films in any 1 year of the 1930s as there in every year since 2000 combined. That's just plainly absurd.
What makes one film age well whilst another film ages very poorly is an interesting point for discussion. I think films like Blackmail, The Lodger, Metropolis, City Lights and Duck Soup, which are actually the 5 oldest films I've seen, have all aged incredibly badly and cannot possibly warrant a 4 star rating. But then other films released not long after that hold up fairly well. Lang's M is something I'd happily watch again, and The 39 Steps is excellent.
I feel productiomn values of the early 30s films are so poor that they detract from the overall enjoyment of the picture, and that doesn't help. Also I recall doc talking about the fact that since sound had just been invented, studios, writers and actors were very much just feeling their way into the new technology and films were weaker as a result. Certainly 40s films are far better, although that doesn't stop these film guides lavishing praise on the 30s stuff.
I wonder whether certain films of our era will age in quite the same way? |
AdamL (Adaml)
Cinematographer
Username: Adaml
Post Number: 2221
Registered: 08-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 05:27 pm: |
|
quote:Anyone seen The Lookout. Best film I've seen this year to date. Loved it.
Anyone?
Seriously, it's great. I've spent about 2 hours every night listening to the score that runs just 39 mins in total every since I saw it on Monday. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, he that has great choices in indie projects, stars. His best performance to date. |
Nicola_D (Nicola_d)
Key Grip
Username: Nicola_d
Post Number: 723
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 06:53 pm: |
|
Re: The Lookout: I reviewed it months ago on this site and liked it a lot. Beautifully shot and acted. I admire the brave film choices Gordon-Levitt has been making. Not the best film I've seen this year, but certainly one of the better ones! I thought Matthew Goode was surprisingly good, too (no pun intended). |
Kathy (Kk1024)
Cinematographer
Username: Kk1024
Post Number: 1910
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 08:07 pm: |
|
I didn't see it. If it's indie, I probably didn't have the opportunity as we mostly only get mainstream stuff. |
AboutFilm host (Carlo)
Moderator
Username: Carlo
Post Number: 7203
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 08:31 pm: |
|
Boy, did Spider-Man 3 suck.
AboutFilm President and Sugar Daddy (www.aboutfilm.com); OFCS Member (www.ofcs.org)
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 4035
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 10:10 pm: |
|
Re: The Lookout:
That's one I'm interested in seeing at some point. Levitt is fast becoming one of the most talented young actors out there.
Re: Spider-Man 3:
Am I alone in really liking it? I find it baffling how many fans of the series treat it like a Batman & Robin/Superman 4-level disaster. The worst thing you can say about it is that is crammed in Venom and Gwen Stacey for no good reason. Both of them should have left for Spidey 4. Other than that, Spidey 3 was a film I enjoyed a good deal (if not as much as the triumphant second film).
And you're doing it for nothing! Killing me's not going to bring back your goddamn honey!
|
Mistress Misanthrope (Scully)
Production Assistant
Username: Scully
Post Number: 474
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Friday, November 09, 2007 - 05:23 pm: |
|
quote:Boy, did Spider-Man 3 suck.
That's a little wordy, Carlo. Can you be more succinct?
There are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
Yeah! (Sanboy)
Cinematographer
Username: Sanboy
Post Number: 2983
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Friday, November 09, 2007 - 10:34 pm: |
|
Huh-huh! They said "suck!" Huh-huh...
Why is “abbreviation” such a long word?
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 4037
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 09, 2007 - 10:43 pm: |
|
"This is what happens, Larry...this is what happens when you F*CK A STRANGER IN THE A$$!"
-The Big Lebowski (1998): Uproarious shaggy-dog joke of a comedy features Jeff Bridges as Jeffrey Lebowski, aka "The Dude" ("Dude, Duder...El Duderino if you're not into that whole brevity thing"), a perpetually baked stoner who gets assaulted by a pair of thugs looking for some money his wife owes some shady types. The thing is, The Dude ain't married. Turns out the two thugs mistook him for the similarly-monikered millionaire Jeffery Lebowski (David Huddelston). The Dude is naturally nonplussed and pretty damn upset that one of the thugs took a whiz on his rug ("It held the whole room together"), so he goes to the "Big" Lebowski in order for him to make amends for the mistaken identity thing, only to find himself embroiled in a byzantine plot involving "Big" Lebowski's missing, potentially kidnapped trophy wife, Bunny (Tara Reid), a gang of threatening nihlists (including Fargo's Peter Stormare), "Big" Lebowski's frosty daughter Maude (Julianne Moore, adopting an accent virtually identical to the one sported by Jennifer Jason Leigh in The Hudsucker Proxy), and his bowling buddy Walter Sobchak (John Goodman), who assists The Dude in his quest to arrange a money drop and replace his beloved rug. One of the loosest Coen comedies, Lebowski coasts along on Bridges' genial charm, the endlessly-quotable screenplay ("Nobody f*cks with the Jesus!"), a plot filled with unpredictable reversals and twists and bizarre dream sequences. You'll either be with this one all the way or find yourself scratching your head in bewilderment, but there's no denying the film's cultish appeal. The Dude abides... A-
"Those si-reens done loved him up an' turned him into a horny toad...!"
-O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000):
Picturesque slice of Depression-era comedy features George Clooney (sporting a Clark Gable moustache) as Ulyesses Everett McGill, one of a trio of criminals (also including John Turturro and Tim Blake Nelson) who make a break from their chain gang duties and strike out in search of a million dollars in loot Ulysses took from an armored car robbery and squirelled away for a rainy day. Making their way across the South, the three find themselves on a quest that brings them across the paths of lynch mobs, a trio of sexy "sirens", a "cyclops" (John Goodman with an eyepatch), and other obstacles inspired by Homer's The Odyssey (which the Coens claim to have never read). Broad-as-a-barn-door farce is filled with great character vignettes, gorgeous, sepia-toned cinematography by Roger Deakins (this being the only Coen movie shot in 2:35.1 scope, it's a feast for the eyes), and a wonderful, old-timey bluegrass/spiritual soundtrack (including the memorable signature tune "I Am A Man Of Constant Sorrow"), yet the relentlessly gooney tone of the film begins to grate after a while. Clooney certainly knows how to cough out that classic Coen dialogue, but one wishes that the film had a few less plot diversions along the way. Still a good film full of laughs, but not top-tier Coen. B
And you're doing it for nothing! Killing me's not going to bring back your goddamn honey!
|
AboutFilm host (Carlo)
Moderator
Username: Carlo
Post Number: 7205
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 10, 2007 - 01:50 am: |
|
Ya want more? Okay, it occurred to me while I was watching the film that there were too many subplots. Then I got to thinking, there's lots of films with just as many subplots. And they pull it off. So what's wrong here? Then it hit me. Screenwriting teachers like to say that there's at least 3 things going on in any great scene. In Spider-Man 3, virtually every scene advanced only one subplot, accomplishing only one thing. Thus the film jerked back and forth among storylines, not really developing any of them sufficiently. And then... the endless sequence of Tobey Maguire pointlessly getting his funk on was just the shit icing on a crap cake.
Better?
The Lives of Others... Boy, did this film not suck.
AboutFilm President and Sugar Daddy (www.aboutfilm.com); OFCS Member (www.ofcs.org)
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 4040
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, November 10, 2007 - 12:21 pm: |
|
How are Peter's Saturday Night Fever dance movies any less silly than the "Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head" montage in Spidey 2? Peter's a geek, so his ideas of what's "cool" should be equally nerdy. Personally, I laughed.
"I litigate...I don't capitulate."
-The Man Who Wasn't There (2001): Moody B&W noir pastiche features Billy Bob Thornton as Ed Crane, a barber circa 1946 who begins to sniff out an affair between his wife Doris (Frances McDormand) and "Big" Dave Brewster (James Gandolfini), the owner of a popular department store. Ed's not particularly upset about the whole thing, but when a travelling businessman named Creighton Tolliver (Jon Polito) wanders into the barbershop one day espousing the benefits of dry cleaning, Ed gets the idea to kill two birds with one stone by balckmailing Big Dave out of $10,000 dollars and using the dough to buy into Creighton's crackpot dry cleaning dream. But, as is so often in the best noir thrillers, the "simple" plan starts going awry almost immediately. There's a murder and a mistaken identity, and Ed soon finds himself hiring fast-talking shyster Freddy Riedenschneider (a dryly hilarious Tony Shaloub), who always refers to himself in the third person, to help extracate himself from a thorny legal situation. Did I mention the comely teenage piano prodigy (Scarlett Johansson) Ed takes a shine to on the side, or the fact that Big Dave might have once been abducted by a UFO? Following the broad, breathless pace of Lebowski and O Brother, TMWWT is one of the Coens' most glacially-paced films, each exquisitely-shot frame (Roger Deakins outdoes himself) brimming with pitch-black shadows, clouds of cigarette smoke and deadpan visual compositions. That said, it's easy to fall into the film's meticulous recreation of that 40's film noir asthetic, and it's especially interesting how the Coens invert the usual structure of classics like Double Idemnity or The Postman Always Rings Twice by turning the cuckolded husband into the film's protagonist rather than the two illicit lovers. There's also plenty of the Coens' off-center sense of humor squiggling around the edges of the frame (Shaloub delivers some deliciously nonsensical speeches in the classic machine gun Coen style) and a finale that ranks with the duo's most haunting work. A-
I am the goddamn Paterfamilias!
|
Oh yeah? (Thezookieman)
Movie Star
Username: Thezookieman
Post Number: 5388
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, November 10, 2007 - 02:11 pm: |
|
quote:for those who saw American Gangster, there is a scene where they are putting various photos on a tackboard and I swear one of those pic is a pic to Nicholas Cage from that movie where is a cop and married to Rosie Perez but loves Bridget Fonda. I was wondering if it was just an inside joke.
Haven't seen American Gangster yet, but when I do, I will keep an eye out.
And speaking of Rosie Perez, earlier in the week, I attended a special screening of her documentary Yo Soy Boricua, Pa'que Tu Lo Sepas! (I'm A Puerto Rican, Just So You Know!) at which she was supposed to show up and field questions from the audience. Unfortunately she wasn't able to make it (drat!), but this guy asks many of the questions I would have asked anyway. She covered a lot of ground and wasn't able to expand upon some parts of her narrative -- which takes her from an explanation of why the Puerto Rican Day Parade is such a joyous celebration, to why the US Navy was using parts of PR as a bombing range, to the forced sterilization program that the government ran for many years -- to the best of my satisfaction, but it was an interesting, personal account. Highly recommended.
P.S.: OK, I admit it, I wasn't just there to ask her questions...I have a serious crush on Rosie 
Standing in the shadow of the One True City...
|
Nicola_D (Nicola_d)
Key Grip
Username: Nicola_d
Post Number: 725
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, November 10, 2007 - 02:28 pm: |
|
Lions for Lambs: I liked it, but I'm not certain I can recommend it. It is well-intentioned and does try to be somewhat impartial. I would tend to think, however, that those on the political right would find much more to disagree with than others. More theatrical than cinematic in scope, except for some slight CGI/battle scenes.. Two and one-half stars. |
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 4045
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 10:21 pm: |
|
"Are you...Wheezy Joe?"
-Intolerable Cruelty (2003): Sharp screwball romance about a fast-talking divorce lawyer, Miles Massey (George Clooney), who crosses paths with a bewitching golddigger named Marilyn Rexroth (a ravishing Catherine Zeta Jones) out to dump her current, train-obsessed hubby (Edward Herrmann) and make off with his considerable fortune. But when Miles manages to thwart her get-rich scheme, Marilyn doesn't get mad...she gets even. Many viewed this film as the Coen brothers "selling out" by daring to feature staggeringly photogenic movie stars, but peel away the big studio gloss and we're left with another one of the duo's trademark windup toy narratives, with plenty of weird plot diversions, dazzlingly breathless, tongue-twisting wordplay, odd supporting characters (like a hulking, asthmatic hitman who figures into the film's biggest laugh) and terrific performances by the two leads. Clooney is peerless at managing to look movie-star handsome and bufoonish at the same time, and Zeta-Jones (looking spectacular) plays her devious mind games with kittenish, flirty spice. The very end of the film fizzles a bit, but otherwise, this is a superior bit of mainstream comedy, ably performed and given that indelible Coen stamp. B+
I am the goddamn Paterfamilias!
|
kiwiboy (Lighthouse_boy)
Movie Star
Username: Lighthouse_boy
Post Number: 3260
Registered: 06-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 02:29 pm: |
|
No Country for Old Men: Brillant. Ranks up their with Fargo and Blood Simple. From the three main characters (Jones, Bardem & Brolin) to the others actors in this film (MacDonald, Dillahunt, Root, Harrelson and Beth Grant), this movie is just so well cast. This movie deserves to be praised. That being said, it will have the box office of $20-25 million (which that Bee movie did in one weekend!). I wish films like this (as well as Once and Eastern Promises) got the general public to seek it out like they did American Gangster.
Grade: A+
back to New Zealand in December
|
James (James)
Production Assistant
Username: James
Post Number: 308
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 03:21 pm: |
|
The Marine: Wow this was bad and not even so bad that it is good way. It is just mystifyingly bad. Now please forgive the perverse comment but John Cena should have spent more time with his shirt off in this movie. That is the only way it would have been remotely interesting. This makes both Transporter movies almost seem like masterpieces.
Grade: F
I always find it interesting how these WWE people have been trying to make it into the big screen The Rock has had success that is because he has a charm to him, not really acting ability but more charm instead. |
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 4046
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 10:19 pm: |
|
"We must all have waffles, forthwith!"
-The Ladykillers (2004): Tom Hanks is a Southern-fried hoot as sniggering criminal mastermind Professor Goldthwaite Higginson Dorr, III, PHD (whew!), who rents a room in the Louisiana house of a feisty old lady (the wonderful Irma P. Hall) in order to tunnel through the crumbly soil in her root cellar and work his way into the vault of a casino and steal over $1.5 million in loot. To achieve this grand plan, he enlists an oddball assortment of cohorts; a demolitions expert plagued by irritable bowel syndrome (J.K. Simmons), a stone-faced tunnelling specialist (Tzi Ma), a jive-talkin' inside man (Marlon Wayans) and a dim-witten muscle man (Ryan Hurst). But can the Professor's well-laid plans stand up under the scrutiny of his leery landlady? And, if not, will he and his fellow criminals be able to bump off the old broad? Genial Coen comedy often attains the Rube Goldbergian comic snap of the old Warner Bros. cartoon shorts, as the gang of estwhile baddies try to off their hostess with increasingly absurd and hilarious results (the flailing slapstick demise of Tzi Ma's character is particularly inspired). Hanks is terrific, disguising his ill intentions behind a baffling wall of erudite verbiage, and half the fun lays in the interplay between the wildly different comic styles of the quintet of inept criminal geniuses. Add on a wonderful gospel soundtrack, and you'v got another winner from the Bros. Coen. B+
[wipes brow] Well, that's that. Can't wait to see No Country For Old Men now.
I am the goddamn Paterfamilias!
|
Alex Dr_Evil (Drevil)
Cinematographer
Username: Drevil
Post Number: 1786
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 03:50 pm: |
|
The Man Who Wasn't There is easily the most underrated Coen brothers film. Ladykillers isn't a great film, but I found it quite funny. Intolerable Cruelty, on the other hand, just sucked.
As for Spider-Man 3, Carlo is absolutely right. There are some superb action scenes, without a doubt. But the plot was so stuffed with subplots, and so unreliable in tone, that it couldn't pull off any sort of consistency. Was it a wacky comedy? An intense action film? Satirical commentary on superheroes? A Lindsay Lohan style chick flick? The film itself could never decide, so each portion is equally half-baked. Words can't describe how much I hated Tobey Maguire's popped-collar prancing around the streets of New York. |
C.J. (Thief)
Movie Star
Username: Thief
Post Number: 3495
Registered: 07-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 04:25 pm: |
|
IMO, Spider-Man 3 wasn't downright, bottom-of-the-barrel awful... it just sucked because the second one was so good, and this one had potential for being a good closure. But a shabby script, and the needless desire to cram too much in one film killed it. I think I ranked it a low B initially, but the more I think of it, the less I like it. Probably a C-, or a D+ now...
JUST MARRIED! -- If you see me posting, my wife must be working.
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 4051
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - 10:22 pm: |
|
Ratatouille: Brad Bird's delightful animated feature is every bit as fun the second time around, and the metaphorical aspects of the screenplay (Remy = Brad Bird, Gusteau's restaurant = Disney's broken-down animation department, long past it's prime and now selling microwavable fast food instead of the gourmet feasts of it's salad days, nasty food critic Anton Ego = critics of Cars, perhaps) come into focus with even more clarity. Gorgeously designed, witty, with a wonderful score by Michael Giacchino, Ratatouille is one of the year's best films. A-
I am the goddamn Paterfamilias!
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 4060
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 16, 2007 - 10:34 pm: |
|
The Beguiled (1970): Fascinating Civil War drama about a gravely-wounded "Yankee" soldier (Clint Eastwood) who's taken under the care of the stern headmistress (Geraldine Page) of an all-girl's etiquette school in order to nurse him back to health before she hands him over to the proper authorities. As his body mends, the soldier begins to make time with the pretty teacher (Elizabeth Hartman, the voice of Mrs. Brisby in The Secret Of NIMH) tending to his wounds, but just when you're expecting a fairly cut-and-dried tale of wartime romance, a Bridges Of Madison County 25 years early, the film suddenly takes a screaming left turn into some dark gothic territory, as old secrets are revealed and character motivations begin to cloud up. Eastwood is superb in a tricky, change-of-pace role, and director "Donald" Siegel (Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, Dirty Harry) and cinematographer Bruce Surtees drench the film in sensuous, dark shadows mirroring the startlingly pitch-black ending the story ultimately hurdles towards. An evocative, engrossing curiosity. A-
I am the goddamn Paterfamilias!
|
C.J. (Thief)
Movie Star
Username: Thief
Post Number: 3496
Registered: 07-2001
| | Posted on Friday, November 16, 2007 - 11:15 pm: |
|
The Lookout Based on the praise it got here, and its current rating at the Tomatometer, I rented this one today and wasn't disappointed. A pretty good film that's rare to see coming around nowadays. The mixture of heist movie with a dramatic background (or should I say, a dramatic film with the backdrop of a heist) works great. The film's pacing is slow, but engaging. The performances were superbly natural. The directing was spot on. And the film just breezed by. Could've stayed watching more. Easily one of the best films of the year. Grade: A-
JUST MARRIED! -- If you see me posting, my wife must be working.
|
Nicola_D (Nicola_d)
Key Grip
Username: Nicola_d
Post Number: 731
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, November 17, 2007 - 03:20 am: |
|
No Country for Old Men: I know I'm in the minority on this one. A Western set in the post Vietnam era, this film could (and should) have been great except for the deliberately "ironic" denouement. For me, the ending was all too cool in it's defiance of convention. It was not only unsatisfying in the way it unraveled the narrative tension, but it served to virtually undermine the brilliance of all that preceded it. I admire their technical skill and craft, but I have never cared much for the Coen brothers as auteurs. As directors, however, they did succeed in eliciting first-rate performances by all concerned, particularly Brolin, MacDonald and Jones. And don't forget Bardem, who gives us one of the best personifications of evil since Hopkin's Lector. Three stars. |
James (James)
Production Assistant
Username: James
Post Number: 309
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, November 17, 2007 - 11:36 am: |
|
I was in the mood for some craptacular cinema so I was watching Grease 2 on TV. I actually think this is better than the first Grease. In the original movie everyone looked too old to be in High School this one people look almost young enough to be in High School. I actually thought Lorna Luft was quite cute as the nymphomanic Paula Rebchuck and the "Reproduction" number is still cute.
Goldy if you ever lurk on the boards I still remember that song "Let's Do It For Our Country"! Maxwell Caulfield was so good looking too bad his acting can't match the looks (Soap Opera at best career for him) and Michelle Pfieffer did manage to emerge unscathed but honestly she wasn't that much better than anyone in the movie. God this movie is so bad but does embrace slightly the camp value, so in that sense...
Grade: D- (I am being kind) |
AdamL (Adaml)
Cinematographer
Username: Adaml
Post Number: 2222
Registered: 08-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, November 17, 2007 - 05:33 pm: |
|
quote:The Lookout Based on the praise it got here, and its current rating at the Tomatometer, I rented this one today and wasn't disappointed. A pretty good film that's rare to see coming around nowadays. The mixture of heist movie with a dramatic background (or should I say, a dramatic film with the backdrop of a heist) works great. The film's pacing is slow, but engaging. The performances were superbly natural. The directing was spot on. And the film just breezed by. Could've stayed watching more. Easily one of the best films of the year. Grade: A-
Yay!
A- is prob more accurate since it is flawed. The Isla Fisher character isn't fully realised and it is predictable, but it was not about where it was going that completely had me hooked, it was how it was getting there.
How'd you like the score? |
Son Of... (Docscribe)
Studio Mogul
Username: Docscribe
Post Number: 8853
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, November 17, 2007 - 10:36 pm: |
|
Beowulf (IMAX 3-D)
Arguably the best ever use of IMAX 3-D technology...certainly the most complex, achieving, if nothing else, a new state-of-the-art for flying, fire-belching screen dragons. And for those who considered the motion capture technique deployed by Zemeckis & Co. for The Polar Express kind of "creepy"...well, the only thing vaguely "creepy" about its use here was how 'warrior porny' they actually got with it. Was this movie rated R? It must have come close, not just for the fantasy nekkidness, but also all those airborne globs of blood from severed limbs and battered bodies.
I suppose that makes the whole thing sound kind of high-tech trashy, but it really wasn't. Not only did they handle the mythic elements well, but also nailed the tale's tragic poetry...and I credit much of this to the quality of the performances. Yeah, underneath all the digital wizardry (and still visible through that hyper-real veneer) were some terrific character actors given a full head of steam. In particular, Ray Winstone was outstanding - and frequently jawdropping - in one of the year's best performances...which was even more amazing when you consider his IRL age, stature, and demeanor. When he delivers the inevitable "I am Beowulf"...yeah, sonofabitch, he is. In this latest refinement of the motion capture technique, each actor's soul came charging through...dammit, you believe! Even Angelina Jolie, bizarrely resurrecting another variation on her weird accent in Alexander worked very well within this fable/fantasy context.
If there's were any serious weaknesses here, none leap immediately (or over-critically) to mind. This is CGI taken to another sublime level, showstoppingly entertaining, but always in service of story and character. Technically, it's a marvel, but I think all the more so because it felt moe like an artist's vision and painstaking labour of love.
Another worthy top 10 entry, and likely instant classic, in a year with sadly too few of either. Big 'WOW'.
"And then his siggy just went *POOF*"
|
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 4063
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, November 17, 2007 - 10:56 pm: |
|
Before The Devil Knows You're Dead: Absolutely gripping tale of a pair of brothers (Philip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, both superb), both suffering from financial difficulties, who decide to pool resources in commiting a "victimless" crime; knocking off the jewelry store owned by their father (a great, grizzled Albert Finney). They both walk off with $60,000 dollars, the old man gets reimbursed by the insurance company, everyone's happy...right? But, like the hapless, inexperience criminals of Sam Raimi's A Simple Plan, what starts off as a simple smash-and-grab exercise suddenly explodes into an unexpected cluster-f*ck, with the two brothers madly attempt to stay one step ahead and erase every potential connection they had to the crime. As brilliantly-performed as the film is, the real star here is octogenerian director Sidney Lumet, helming the chronologically-fractured tale with the kinetic storytelling and visual brio that characterized his great, 70's films like Dog Day Afternoon and Network. For once, the non-linear narrative tricks don't play like post-Tarantino, lookit-me film school showboating, but the splintered shards of story (leading up to and continuing after the crime in question) actually puts the audience in the troubled mindset of the increasingly-desperate brothers as they sweat and scheme and scramble. This is the best, most dramatically-sound use of non-linear storytelling since Memento. This is also the Best Goddamn Movie I've seen all year. Run, don't walk. A
BTW, Marisa Tomei naked! 
I am the goddamn Paterfamilias!
|
Nicola_D (Nicola_d)
Key Grip
Username: Nicola_d
Post Number: 733
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 12:20 am: |
|
Monty: You should have prefaced your remarks with a "spoilers" advisory. Some of the plot points you mentioned are shocking when we first learn about them....
Beowulf-non-IMAX 3D: The best use of 3D I've ever seen; so good that it was the first time I did not find the technique annoyingly distracting. I actually didn't notice it at all about 20 minutes into the movie. Visually spectacular, BUT I still don't care much for the wax-figure like appearance of the human faces.
I've always been a fan of the marvelous Ray Winstone, and the other male performances are quite good, too. Unfortunately, the few women in the cast did not fare as well; except, surprisingly enough, B.O.P. Jolie*. She was perfectly cast as a beautiful, evil seductress. Quite convincing!
But is the technology intended to make the humans look animated or real? If it's the former, it succeeded, but as such it compromises our connection to the characters thus diminishing the overall dramatic impact. If it's the latter, they haven't quite gotten there-yet. I thought the somewhat similar (and more entertaining) 300 was a better use of CGI effects interwoven with live-action. Three stars.
..
*Box Office Poison |
Son Of... (Docscribe)
Studio Mogul
Username: Docscribe
Post Number: 8855
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 01:15 am: |
|
Well, I've always landed among the "It's both, and neither" camp in this 'animated vs. real' debate over use of the motion capture technique Nicola. I like that outré synthesis - in my view, the subtle 'erehwon' feel it creates is its greatest creative strength, at least with fable/fantasy subjects.
And although I would agree that the women in Beowulf (except for Jolie) didn't fare as well as the men under such digital manipulation, in part this was simply because their characters were less 'larger than life' or dynamically active, as well as less substantively written (in the source material they were even thinner). None of them were given the good lines or great character close-ups.
After the show tonight, I was looking at some stills online, and man, what a beautifully 'lit' movie. Gorgeous digital art direction and cinematography. The progamming of a third dimension into the rendering was just bonus - this imagery would live strongly on its own via conventional projection or video transfer. So I'm back to the 'labour of love' thing...this wasn't your run of the mill, cranking it all out, big studio popcorn product. Zemeckis and Co. were definitely pitching for a rare blend of technical showmanship and artistic substance.
On both counts, I think Beowulf is a "keeper".
"And then his siggy just went *POOF*"
|
Nicola_D (Nicola_d)
Key Grip
Username: Nicola_d
Post Number: 734
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 01:28 am: |
|
One person's strength is another's weakness, I guess. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how far and in what direction James Cameron pushes the same technology in his Avatar. |
Son Of... (Docscribe)
Studio Mogul
Username: Docscribe
Post Number: 8856
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 01:32 am: |
|
Never to be outdone, or go the easy route, James Cameron will no doubt deliver a very different kind of synth-reality showstopper...assuming he still remembers how to direct!
"And then his siggy just went *POOF*"
|
C.J. (Thief)
Movie Star
Username: Thief
Post Number: 3497
Registered: 07-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 08:35 am: |
|
Adam
quote:A- is prob more accurate since it is flawed. The Isla Fisher character isn't fully realised and it is predictable, but it was not about where it was going that completely had me hooked, it was how it was getting there.
How'd you like the score?
James Newton Howard always does a pretty good job, but I liked the subtlety of this one.
JUST MARRIED! -- If you see me posting, my wife must be working.
|
AdamL (Adaml)
Cinematographer
Username: Adaml
Post Number: 2223
Registered: 08-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 08:38 am: |
|
quote:Another worthy top 10 entry, and likely instant classic, in a year with sadly too few of either.
Surprised to hear that. I'm usually the first to bemoan the quality of the films in a year but this year has been superb.
I think 3:10 to Yuma, Superbad, Michael Clayton, Eastern Promises, The Lookout, Breach, Zodiac and Tell No One are all A- or better. I haven't seen that many high quality films by this stage in a year for a while. Plus there's Before the Devil..., American Gangster, Beowulf, Jesse James, Old Country..., There Will Be Blood, Charlie Wilson... and Sweeny Todd still to come for me and I suspect there'll be a few A- or higher in that list. |
Monterey Jack (Monty)
Movie Star
Username: Monty
Post Number: 4064
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 08:39 am: |
|
My problem with mocap animation is I can't see the point in creating a "photorealistc" representation of an actor for millions and millions of dollars when you could just, I dunno, shoot the actor themself. Sin City and 300 had the right idea; shooting live actors against elaborate CGI backdrops. It's like, would you create a CGI apple for an actor to use as a prop in one scene when you could just spend sixty cents and buy a real apple? The whole point of animating something as opposed to shooting it in live action should be to stylize the characters in a way that's impossible to do with real actors.
I am the goddamn Paterfamilias!
|
Son Of... (Docscribe)
Studio Mogul
Username: Docscribe
Post Number: 8857
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 12:57 pm: |
|
Monty re:
quote:"My problem with mocap animation is I can't see the point in creating a "photorealistc" representation of an actor for millions and millions of dollars when you could just, I dunno, shoot the actor themself."
But what actor? Traditionally, anyone who actually looked 'Dolph-Lundgrenish' enough to pass for Beowulf physically would be...charitably speaking...most certainly not a Ray Winstone.
As an effects technique, motion capture opens the possibility for casting more for acting chops than physical presence. IRL Ray Winstone looks almost nothing like this character except around the eyes and mouth. Neither does Malkovich. And not to put too fine a point on it, but Angelina Jolie doesn't have that perfect a body or a seductive golden tail. Only Hopkins, and to a lesser degree Wright Penn, were less of a physical stretch.
I think the appeal of this motion capture technique - and it is so expensive that filmmakers could never justify using it except for material too difficult to realize any other way - is its seamless integration of fantasy characters into a fantasy world. Neither of the Miller based movies you mentioned even attempted to achieve this...those were recognizable actors, with recognizable movements on recognizably scaled sets later substituted with comic book backgrounds in post production. With Sin City the result was mostly just a tacky, studio-bound, over-designed B-list cameo parade (and a pretty bad movie to boot, except for the Mickey Rourke segment). With 300 they got luckier with Gerard Butler, even though his pronounced Scottish burr made the Spartan king a endearingly farcial element in a movie already brimming with outright camp. At the other extreme, his Persian nemesis pretty much proves my point - although this guy was physically tall enough for the part, yeeesh, what a raving Euro-trash queen, even without all those YouTube spoof videos underlining the point! In any case, neither movie was conceived as more than just fun, goofy, colourful entertainment; there was certainly no mistaking either for art (despite their ad agency caliber mimmickry of comic book trappings - oops, 'graphic novels'). On the other hand, Beowulf was classic literature given richly imagined, dramatic new life through an uncommon combination of technological innovation and acting prowess. There is no equivalent sequence, scene, or shot in either of those actor/green screen Miller pieces that can compare with Zemeckis' often breathtaking, continuously rendered shots soaring and swooping through this ancient mythic world.
Apples and oranges.
"And then his siggy just went *POOF*"
|
Nicola_D (Nicola_d)
Key Grip
Username: Nicola_d
Post Number: 735
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 02:12 pm: |
|
Despite the classic source material, I didn't think Zemeckis' Beowulf was all that much more interesting a story than 300. And I'd say the latter was, on the whole, more entertaining and the imagery was visually stunning in it's own right.
As far as apples and oranges goes, I recognize the difference in concept, however the technology just isn't there yet to pull it off successfully. There is no reason why fantasy characters that are portrayed as human beings should look like animated wax figures to be true the fantastic situations in which they find themselves. Until they make human faces look like real human faces, I think a loss of dramatic effect is inevitable. I'm with Monty in this debate.
... |
Son Of... (Docscribe)
Studio Mogul
Username: Docscribe
Post Number: 8858
Registered: 05-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 06:14 pm: |
|
But I still think you're both trying to judge this type of character animation based on what you expect it do deliver: 100% photo-real people, which these mythic characters are not, and were never meant to be, if for no other reason than the actors cast to play them best. It's that same biased and flawed argument that misjudged how faithful the storybook rendering in The Polar Express was to the timeless, dreamlike illustrations in Chris Van Allburg's books. If aping 'real-for-real' is ultimately the only aesthetic objective, why go to so much time, trouble, and expense? I think there's more to Zemeckis' quest in this medium than simply microscopically reproducing skin textures and movements.
Alas, we live in such a literal era, and I think your reaction is probably more in tune with the general public's tastes regarding this subject. Ironically, you accept that strange 'humanlike-though-not-quite-human' look with a Shrek or Ratatouille or even Flushed Away, but not an ancient epic poem visualized with some genuine poetic flair and license. I guess I just don't get that 'either/or' "Show me people, or show me 'toons" expectation. Moviemaking isn't (or shouldn't be) so 'one size fits all' in terms of style, and yet on this subject there seems so little discerning middle ground.
"And then his siggy just went *POOF*"
|
|
Discussion Archives 
