I adore Some Like It Hot! Especially Lemmon's performance. Yes, The Apartment is arguably a better film, but surley Wilder was aiming to have more fun with this? The Apartment has a serious and substantial core which Some Like It Hot doesn't need.
I know I'm about to feed your incessant, irrational frothing hatred of Spielberg, :tease:
I felt like he was trying to ape Spielberg's style.
I'd have been fascinated by Spielberg's version, but a Scorcese Schindler's List? No way!
I adore Some Like It Hot! Especially Lemmon's performance. Yes, The Apartment is arguably a better film, but surley Wilder was aiming to have more fun with this? The Apartment has a serious and substantial core which Some Like It Hot doesn't need.
Don't get me wrong, it's a cute film, but it does not deserve the gargantuan glowing praise that has been poured upon it over the years.I know I'm about to feed your incessant, irrational frothing hatred of Spielberg, :tease:
I DON"T hate Spielberg, I just see him for what he is, a modern day P.T. Barnum. There are a few films by him that I like...Amistad, Empire of the Sun, Catch Me If You Can and The Sugarland Express.I felt like he was trying to ape Spielberg's style.
If that were the case, it would have had elements to it that were overdone. Subtlety is not Spielberg's strongest suit.I'd have been fascinated by Spielberg's version, but a Scorcese Schindler's List? No way!
Why not, it would have been interesting to see Joe Pesce as Amon Goeth. You Jews think I'm funny! BANG! :laugh:
And just think of all the creative camera angles that Scorcese would have used when a German shot one of the Jews.
Could you image a Scorsese Schindler's List? All the Nazis would be played by Italian Americans. :laugh:
I thought that Scorcese's Cape Fear was particularly subtle... The material suits Scorcese much better though that it would have Spielberg (I do like the PT Barnum comparison...).I felt like he was trying to ape Spielberg's style.
If that were the case, it would have had elements to it that were overdone. Subtlety is not Spielberg's strongest suit.
Why the jab at Tarantino? :shrug:
I have to watch this again, because while I did really, really like it, I couldn't quite shake a contrived feeling. Especially the confrontation towards the end.
some shots looked over-digital and false, whereas Affleck made Boston feel like a character in his film.
In terms of stories about San Francisco -a place I have never been- Zodiac pales against Dirty Harry, Bullitt or Vertigo. Maybe Fincher wasn't aiming for that, but the Zodiac story is so engrained in the city
Why the jab at Tarantino? :shrug:
Because QT could have never created the sense of fear and horror that Fincher does with the two murder scenes shown in the beginning. They would have been bloody massacres, and nothing else. He's the poster child for childish, over the top bloodlettings. When Zodiac attacks the couple at the lake, I was completely unnerved by the way it was shot. It didn't need copious amounts of blood to put across the severity of the situation.
But I read somewhere that the city of San Francisco wouldn't let Fincher shoot scenes in certain places where the actual crimes took place. This could be the reason for the use of digital.
Ruffalo striding out of screening of Dirty Harry, muttering "due process"- because by linking with Dirty Harry it inferred to me that the Detective was very much part of the city like Callaghan was.
Ruffalo striding out of screening of Dirty Harry, muttering "due process"- because by linking with Dirty Harry it inferred to me that the Detective was very much part of the city like Callaghan was.
Here's where you're misinterpreting a scene...It's not that Fincher is linking Toschi with Harry Callahan, or Callahan's association with San Francisco, he's making a sarcastic quip about Callahan's rogue nature. And how Toschi wishes he could impart a little rogue justice upon Arthur Leigh Allen, but his hands are tied by a justice system that makes you cross every T and dot every I, before you arrest someone. That's what I took from that scene.
I love Le Samourai too. :clap:
The Departed (2006) 3/5
I hope that the original is better than this.
The Departed (2006) 3/5
I hope that the original is better than this.
Well I thought you were being a bit harsh! :laugh: I really like The Departed, but I love Infernal Affairs. It's leaner and better focused, certainly. Like a Michael Mann film.
But that's because you never lived in Massachusetts. I can't remember who it was on this site who hated Rock-n-Rolla because of the exaggerated dialogue, but that's exactly the way I felt watching this tedious mish-mosh of Scorsese pablum.
My Night at Maud's (1969) 4/5
...and the film kind of ends on a whimper.
My Night at Maud's (1969) 4/5
...and the film kind of ends on a whimper.
Rohmer didn't go that often for emotionally powerful endings as in L'amour l'après-midi, but to call the double-twist of the reveal and the protagonist's reaction to it a whimper...
I hope you're not trying to say that Bostonians don't have very distinct and heavy dialect.
Was Francoise, Maud's ex-husband's mistress?
If a Kennedy and a regular person from Boston say the following sentence... I parked the car on Cape Cod
A Kennedy says it this way...I pawked the caw awn Cape Cawd, a noticeable Boston Braman dialect.
The average Bostonian says it... I pahked the cah ahn Cape Cahd
Was Francoise, Maud's ex-husband's mistress?
Indeed, she was.
Then I definitely change my feelings about the end of the film. But I also wonder about your interpretation of Jean-Louis' reaction. To me, his reaction wasn't indifference but more that the reality went right by him. He was so blinded by his love for Francoise that he had emotional blinders on and didn't get the inference of Maud & Francoise knowing each other. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I felt as the scene happened.
Find where these people are working and start a boycott of the business, picket in front of the businesses where they work. Eventually, those who hire them will tire of the bad publicity and fire them. Once they lose the influx of cash they'll wither and disappear.
Someone give me the headlines. Short summaries are one thing, but what's the synopsis and motive... ;)
Oh, I remember now! In fact I've seen the bloody thing, I think. :bag: Antares, is this the BBC documentary with Louis Theroux?Accordingto IMDb: Yes (the lack of synopsis made me search there...)
The Most Hated Family in America (2007) 4.5/5 - I'm speechless, I mean words just cannot describe the wonderment I felt knowing that these sick individuals exist in our country. I can't honestly say what I would do if a relative of mine had been killed and these sick fucks picketed the funeral. What I don't understand is why the groups that are combating Westboro's loathsome practices aren't trying to weaken them financially. In the documentary it is stated that the members of the church must work real jobs and give 10% of their earnings to the church. Find where these people are working and start a boycott of the business, picket in front of the businesses where they work. Eventually, those who hire them will tire of the bad publicity and fire them. Once they lose the influx of cash they'll wither and disappear.
Louis has gone back and done another one! :hysterical: It's on tonight. Just watch the video clip on this link, it's incredible.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12924568
The Departed (2006) 3/5 - Can someone please tell directors that no one in Massachusetts talks like the Kennedys, except for the Kennedys!!!! I lived the first 25 years of my life in Massachusetts, and it drives me absolutely insane when I watch a film that takes place in my old home state where everyone speaks so phonetically fucked up.
I can't for the life of me, understand all the praise that is heaped upon Martin Scorsese. This film was tedious at points and ridiculous in others. Scorsese, to me, has always been a little too interested in how a film looks as opposed to how the screenplay is gelling, and this film is no different. While the base story was an interesting concept, Scorsese mucks it up by having the main character be so stupid that he can't deduce that Costigan is the State Police mole, even though Costigan was an ex-trooper trainee. Shit, it's easy to see how such a bright individual worked his way up to the top of the Irish mafia. Another bad moment is when Queenan is tossed form the roof and lands at Costigan's feet, but the cops in the car who are tailing Queenan just keep saying to Sullivan, "Something came off the roof", repeatedly. I guess these cops are blind because they're parked within visual range of the front door of the building and should have been able to deduce that it was a body that came off the roof. Oh, and another thing, to get from South Boston to Washington street takes at least 20 minutes on a good day. But in this film they get there so fast, you'd think it was right around the corner. And finally, towards the end when Costello is being confronted by Sullivan, after the first shots are fired by Costello and Sullivan, there is a small bit of dialogue between the two and then finally more shots. The camera then shoots the pair from above as Sullivan yells, "I got him", yet no one is moving towards where the shots have been fired. This moment was so ridiculous I couldn't take it anymore. The second the first salvo was fired between the two, a swarm of state troopers would have started moving towards it, but this would have gotten in the way of the final showdown I guess.
I hope that the original is better than this.
Louis has gone back and done another one! :hysterical: It's on tonight. Just watch the video clip on this link, it's incredible.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12924568
Someone really needs to cyanide their Koolaid. ;)
They plan to move to Jerusalem. Or Jordan, to pink caves. I lose track. :hysterical:
They plan to move to Jerusalem. Or Jordan, to pink caves. I lose track. :hysterical:
Jerusalem? I'm pretty sure in the original documentary they were ranting about how the Jews killed Christ. Oh...they'll be welcomed there for sure. :stars:
Jon, can you upload this new segment? I'm dying to see it.
This is definitely going into my top twenty of all time.Wow! That's quite a recommendation!
This is definitely going into my top twenty of all time.Wow! That's quite a recommendation!
This forum is hell on my wish list. :redcard:
Hey Jon, how's it going with Gene Kelly? I've already finished two from my list, you need to kick it up a notch.
This was an interesting film, on the one hand there wasn't much to the plot, but on the other hand, what there was, was captivating enough to hold my attention. But that being said, I felt like I was invited to a sumptuous buffet, but I only was served an appetizer. I just expected more from a film that many consider a bonafide classic. I will say that my favorite moment in the film is when Antoine and Rene are at the puppet show and Truiffaut stays transfixed on the younger children who are watching the show. The expressions on these children's faces is priceless and juxtaposes the difference from their innocence to Antoine and Rene's evolving delinquency. I thought it was the best part of the film. I would recommend this film to others, but with a little less of the hype that I've heard about it.
Have you seen Bicycle Thieves? That's one of the more famous ones.
The Social Network (2010) 3/5 - A Disclaimer before I start: I don't own a cel phone, nor a laptop or Ipad. I shut down my Facebook account last year because I got sick and tired of "friends" sending me endless invitations to Yoville, Farmville and Mafia wars.On Facebook, you can choose to block all invitations from apps such as Farmville or Mafia Wars. I don't receive any invitations for those any longer. When new ones pop up, I block those too.
I decided that my real life was much more entertaining than wasting my time posting un-important bullshit on a wall.I see "real life" and my Facebook wall as two different things. Things that people post to my FB wall that make me smile, laugh or reflect are things that add to my life rather than detract from it.
Unless you are into the latest trend in computer technology, then this film is a snooze-fest. I kept looking at the timer on my DVD player every 10 or so minutes, and couldn't believe how uninteresting this film was. Yes, I will agree that at times Aaron Sorkin wrote some great exchanges between the characters, but my wife and myself both felt the same thing at the end of this film... that this was acclaimed by many because they felt a need to validate their existence and lifestyle perpetuated in the Facebook community.I loved it for its depiction of different sides of the same story. That didn't have anything to do with the fact that I have a FB account. I enjoyed the plot in the same way that I enjoyed The Fighter without being a boxer, or Black Swan without knowing how to ballet dance or The King's Speech without being either a stutterer or a teacher.
My sister is heavily addicted to her Facebook page and when I closed my account last year, and she noticed it, she sent me an e-mail first to see if anything had happened to me. She couldn't understand how I could close my account. But the ironic part of this story is this... she sent an e-mail instead of just picking up the phone and calling me. Have we become so afraid of personal contact that we use social networks as not only a crutch, but like a guardian angel? Do people now "hide" behind their social wall at Facebook, afraid of personal interaction?Posting on a FB wall is a form of personal interaction IMO. My sister and I share FB posts, emails, phone calls and in-person interaction. I changed my profile pic the other day and she commented on it in such a way that it made me smile. For me, FB adds to my real life relationships. Occasionally, my internet relationships, such as those with people in this forum or other forums (:waves:) touch my real life.
I loved it for its depiction of different sides of the same story. That didn't have anything to do with the fact that I have a FB account. I enjoyed the plot in the same way that I enjoyed The Fighter without being a boxer, or Black Swan without knowing how to ballet dance or The King's Speech without being either a stutterer or a teacher.
Also, I remember the day when phone calls were not considered "personal interaction". It was bad form to do many things over the phone rather than face to face.
Unless you are into the latest trend in computer technology, then this film is a snooze-fest [snip] but my wife and myself both felt the same thing at the end of this film... that this was acclaimed by many because they felt a need to validate their existence and lifestyle perpetuated in the Facebook community.
Btw, since you specifically mentioned that you haven't seen Black Swan yet, I assume you did see Winter's Bone?
Btw, since you specifically mentioned that you haven't seen Black Swan yet, I assume you did see Winter's Bone?
I keep forgetting about that one, I need to add it to my list.
The Proposition (2005) 4/5 - After reading Smirnoff's dire review of this film over at Filmspotters, I had second thoughts about watching it, but I'm glad I did. 'Noff was right, it is an ugly film about ugly characters, but to me, it was rich in the scope by which it told the story. The latter part of the nineteenth century was a very hostile time all over the world, especially in frontier lands on the outskirts of civilization. This film reminded me very much of a Leone western, with even more bleakness than you expect from a spaghetti western. The one question I would like to ask Smirnoff is this...did you like Sexy Beast? At times I felt the same disdain for the characters that I felt for that film, which coincidentally, also starred Ray Winstone.I really liked The Proposition as well. It seems to portray the era and especially the Australian landscapes very well and one can learn a thing or two about aboriginal relations at the time.
Seriously? Both films struck me as rather unremarkable, despite good performances. And while I concede some "grittiness" to The Fighter, it's little more than a traditional sports movie (yawn) based on a true story (double-yawn). And come to think of it, The King's Speech is just the royal version of a sports movie, although others have argued it's basically a romantic comedy. :)
The Proposition (2005) 4/5 - After reading Smirnoff's dire review of this film over at Filmspotters, I had second thoughts about watching it, but I'm glad I did. 'Noff was right, it is an ugly film about ugly characters, but to me, it was rich in the scope by which it told the story. The latter part of the nineteenth century was a very hostile time all over the world, especially in frontier lands on the outskirts of civilization. This film reminded me very much of a Leone western, with even more bleakness than you expect from a spaghetti western. The one question I would like to ask Smirnoff is this...did you like Sexy Beast? At times I felt the same disdain for the characters that I felt for that film, which coincidentally, also starred Ray Winstone.I really liked The Proposition as well. It seems to portray the era and especially the Australian landscapes very well and one can learn a thing or two about aboriginal relations at the time.
I am not sure I see the relation, other than Ray Winstone, with Sexy Beast though, as I find that to be a very different film ("No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no." :laugh:).
Antares, you should check out The Road. Another Hillcoat/McCarthy film that was dismissed as depressing, but actually is almost flawed with a sentimental edge. And if you think you can handle Winstone playing an arsehole, you absolutely have to try 44 Inch Chest. I'd love to hear your take on that after I detested it!
Black Swan (2010) 3/5 - I'm glad that Natalie Portman was selected as Best Actress by the Academy, she deserved it for this role. But that being said, the rest of the film, while at times stylish, just kept constantly reminding me of Polanski's Repulsion, a much better film about a woman slowly going insane.
I think you might like The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp Antares. Livesay is in it and it's a Powell/Pressburger film.
I think you might like The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp Antares. Livesay is in it and it's a Powell/Pressburger film.
I've seen and I loved it.
Not yet, but I own it. It's just been sitting in my unwatched pile for about 8 months.
I've already promised another person at another forum that I would watch it this weekend. He felt that it was a sin that I had it in my collection and that it was collecting dust. :bag:
Hot Fuzz (2007) 3.5/5 - For the last few years I've read such glowing praise of this British comedy, and finally after reading a friends review on another forum, I decided the time had come to watch it. Well, after the first hour or so, I couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. Sure, it had me chuckling every so often, but to be honest, I was expecting side-spliiting belly laughter. But it seems, I only had to wait until the climax of the film. When the town rises up against the new police officer, I was keeling over. Every action film cliché is skewered with the precision of a surgeon, not to mention the countless quotable lines that come fast and quick. I'm now looking forward to Shaun of the Dead.
A Matter of Life and Death (1946) 3.5/5 - I was going to start out this review by telling verbALs to stop scratching his head, because I finally watched the film, but I think that after he reads the score I rated this film, he may just keep on scratching away. I liked the film, but when Raymond Massey's character comes forward, I thought it threw a money wrench into the flow of the screenplay. Bringing an anti-British rant from an American just seemed to me, a little disengenous. This was only one year removed from the end of the Second World War and it just came across as a rather condescending way to take a swipe at the Americans who were still over in England awaiting their return to the States. I saw it as a brave move by Pressburger to do it, but also it appeared as he was left-handedly saying... These Americans, what petulant little children. I could be reading it wrong, but that's how it came across to me.
It reminded me of something I read in a New York Times archived newspaper one day when I was perusing the microfilm collection at a library. I had been reading war reports from France from the D-Day invasion until the Battle of the Bulge. I was surprised to read a small piece about French citizens complaining about the American soldiers in the aftermath of the liberation of Paris. They were actually complaining about the soldiers who had just liberated them from over 4 years of Nazi occupational tyranny.
You have to remember that Europe was very critical of America's lack of involvement in the early years of the war...
Imagine if your neighbour started throwing grenades on your lawn and you called the police. They ignore you, but just as your lawn has been turned into a useless pit of wreckage and mud and you can't find your dog, they turn up, pat you on the head and say, "don't you worry" and then demolish your neighbours house. Would you shake their hand for a job well done? :laugh:
I think some in France felt let down that America didn't step in sooner and even several years of war doesn't undo that. A fair argument would be of course, why didn't the French put up more of a struggle. That leads me to the British perspective and the film.
Because England didn't fall, but did suffer a lot in trying to help France immediately, I think P&P were having an ironic political dig at America. What we're seeing in this film is possibly an early example of the resentment from other countries about the American foreign policy method amounting to sledgehammers to crack a nut! But even then it's not that simple. It's been a while since I saw the film, but I have seen it a lot. I seem to remember feeling that in those staged arguments against America, there was an air of proud sadness that perhaps recognised that Europe was in a mess for deeper, very old reasons long before even WWI broke out. To go back to my silly example, you probably watched your neighbour making those grenades that eventually he threw at your lawn and maybe you even helped him.
I'm not looking for an argument here by the way, but the politics of the 1940s are fascinatingly complex and it's very difficult to judge fairly in retrospect. You have to remember that P&P would have been of a mindset born of the British Empire and old Europe, so America was young and naive.
So in this sense, you can't as a country or a continent for that matter, fault the US for not coming to your rescue sooner.
That'll teach me to try and be Devil's Advocate. If you reread my post without getting too jingoistic (oh hang on, it was the 4th July the other day wasn't it? :tease: ), you'll see I was talking about the emotional response of everyday people, while also alluding to the fact that history held the lessons. You spelled out much of what I meant, but somehow thinking it was me being critical of America. Don't take it personally, or make it personal.
"You"? Oh well. :-\ We didn't need rescuing, you needed insurance and were sticking with "wait and see", just like WWI. Had England fallen, the Third Reich would have swarmed over Europe and where would Hitler be looking next? 'You' would have had a nasty fight on your hands then. England couldn't stand by and let him get stronger. We can see bloody France from Dover! Too close for comfort.
I wasn't taking it or trying to make it personal. I was only pointing out how hypocritical it was for P & P to take their little dig as you called it. I never for one moment, included you in that summation.
I'm sorry to disagree with you again, but you did need rescuing. By December 7 of 1941, Karl Donitz and the U- boat wolfpacks had almost singlehandedly severed your lifeline to the commonwealth nations and their important natural resources. A few more months of that or Roosevelt deciding to throw our full industrial weight behind defeating Japan would have surely spelled the end of Britain's involvement in WWII. Remember that Hitler did not want to defeat Britain in 1940. He knew that if England capitulated, your overseas empire would have been divided between the US and Japan and your navy would have probably been relinquished to Canada. But that being said, if Britain had fallen, then we would have concentrated our relief efforts on supporting Russia. Even though we did not trust Stalin at the time, Hitler was about to make the same mistake that Napoleon had the previous century, by committing to a land war in Asia. I guarantee you that with Britain out of the war and the Wehrmacht concentrating wholly upon Mother Russia, Stalin would have acquiesced to our troops traveling across Siberia to help fight the Nazi invasion. You'd be amazed at how fast the Russians would have built train tracks to the Kamchatka Peninsula.
Are you kidding? "Hitler didn't want to defeat Britain in 1940"? What absolute bollocks! You do remember something called The Battle of Britain?
I remember seeing that in some movie: I guess the fact that the Americans cracked the code of the enigma thingy also helped move things along more quickly.
:laugh::thumbup:
Yeah, nice try Mr "all I learned about the war was from Matthew McConaughey in that super accurate U571"! :redcard: I ain't biting. You hear? No. Not doing it. :-X
I thought you both might get a kick out of this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2012552/War-veteran-takes-airline-Flybe-excess-luggage-charge-military-flag.html
Well Jon, you have something in common with Chuck Yeager. He was upset by David Lean's The Sound Barrier back in the fifties when it depicted the breaking of the sound barrier by a Brit. He also commented on how wrong the film was in how it showed the pilot finally achieving success by going into a steep dive. He stated that if a pilot were to do that, he'd be killed.
I'm saying that Clouzot was making it like this on purpose. Yes, he could have been more efficient, but he chose to frustrate you instead.Well, then I guess Antares and me are saying we feel it was a bad choice ;) On purpose or not, if a film makes me fel bored or frustrated that can't be a good thing. What made it worse for me was, that the lead character was not likable. So it became even more frustrating that I had to watch him doing his thing for an hour...
I'm saying that Clouzot was making it like this on purpose. Yes, he could have been more efficient, but he chose to frustrate you instead.
some called it anti-American, I thinkIt was actually shorted for US release to remove the anti-American sections. There is a very detailed feature on this on The Criterion Collection release.
Thinking about this I just realized, that maybe the main protagonists were more likable to a French audience in the 1950s...? :headscratch: maybe it's just our modern sensibilities that take stronger objections at the über-macho, yet partly childish behavior. :hmmmm: In which case, the first hour would have been more "entertaining" to those audiences and the 60min would have purely served as a drag, showing how desperate bored those men were. I'd buy that for a dollar :D
Twelve Monkeys (1995) 4/5
I think now that I'm finally going to seek out Gilliam's other films, if they're half as good as this was, I'll be happy.
I'm ashamed to say that I haven't seen too many of Terry Gilliam's films, even though I'm a huge Monty Python fan.Gilliam's films are (almost) nothing like Monty Python (except Jabberwocky maybe).
I know you enjoy British movies, but perhaps there is a limit to the British sense of humour you can join in with?
Average? Nonsense! I absolutely adored this film and I do think you were far too harsh...(click to show/hide)
This was a fine, lyrical film with a maturely feminist slant. I think the Coen's adaptation unlocks the heart of the story in a brilliant way and it could be their best film, because it demonstrates such a delicate, confident touch. It was never about realism and if it were, there would be a dozen other problems aside from logistics of hill climbing in vital seconds.
Average? Nonsense! I absolutely adored this film and I do think you were far too harsh...(click to show/hide)
This was a fine, lyrical film with a maturely feminist slant. I think the Coen's adaptation unlocks the heart of the story in a brilliant way and it could be their best film, because it demonstrates such a delicate, confident touch. It was never about realism and if it were, there would be a dozen other problems aside from logistics of hill climbing in vital seconds.
It made me appreciate the John Wayne version more, I'll give it that. Like I stated, I was really enjoying it, until the after the shootout. But that quick shift into overdrive was so wrong. And my concerns over the implausibilities have been noted by others at filmspotters, so I don't feel like I was grasping at something imaginary on my part.
Let me ask you this...Do you think it was as good as TAoJJbtCRF? It tried to use the same atmosphere and aesthetics as that film did, but to me, kind of paled in comparison.
I think you give him far too much credit, suggesting this is possibly an accepted theory in some circles, discussed by literary scholars. I'm sure it isn't.
Emmerich has done nothing to earn respect for such an opinion.It's not an opinion, it's entertainment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-15440882
Regarding the people of Stratford-Upon-Avon: I'm sure they will never admit it, but many people will be happy about this film (even though they may not like the film), simply because it will bring in more tourists and therefore more money. Nobody likes tourists, but everybody loves the money they spend.
That's an interesting article, but you have to admit that they have a vested interest in debunking anyone or any premise which suggests what the Oxford debate puts forth.
You mention Kenneth Branagh in your response, and how you would only watch it because Branagh is an authority on Shakespeare's work. Well then, do you feel the same way about Derek Jacobi? Because one of the reasons that I agreed to watch the film, is because Jacobi appears in the film as a fictional Shakespearean actor who presents the premise for an audience at a theater. Jacobi has portrayed many of Shakespeare's most famous characters, and for me, his participation in a film such as this, has to lend at least a smidgen of authenticity to the debate.
Jon,
I have a big disadvantage: I take fiction as what it is.
Just because some historically "real" names were involved, doesn't mean that I'm watching a documentary.
It would never come to my mind to accuse works of fiction of being historically incorrect. For one reason or the other they all are, and have to be.
Believe it or not, this film will not shift reality, and it will definitely not change historical facts. It will not even change what we know about historical facts (which is a difference).
It is a work of fiction, even worse it's a work by Roland "Catastrophe" Emmerich, and anyone actually discussing whether it mirrors historical events correctly is in a severe need of readjusting his perception of reality.
Regarding the Shakespeare/Oxford thesis: Shakespeare may, or may not have written the works assigned to his name. So what? Will this change anything about the importance of the works as such? Definitely not.
Even if it would have been Oxford wouldn't mean that we'd have to rewrite history. In this case it obviously was the wish of the author that his works should be published under the name of Shakespeare. The historically hopefully significantly less important Stephen King did exactly the same when publishing parts of his works as "Richard Bachman".
Regarding the people of Stratford-Upon-Avon: I'm sure they will never admit it, but many people will be happy about this film (even though they may not like the film), simply because it will bring in more tourists and therefore more money. Nobody likes tourists, but everybody loves the money they spend.
Many people rely on fiction to understand fact,Possibly,
I totally agree with your take on Horrible Bosses. Even my "good friend" Mark Kermode liked it and thought the six-laugh-rule clearly applied.
I also saw Bridesmaid (but probably only because it was playing on the plane I was on). I would rate a 2-2.5 though, thinking that some of the scenes were indeed funny. Most of the cringe humor they attempted fell pretty flat though. I liked the character of that short, slightly fat woman a lot.(click to show/hide)
Rear Window (1954) 4/5 - I avoided this film for the longest time because I've never been a fan of the hoity-toity warbling of Grace Kelly when she speaks, it's like nails on a chalkboard to me. But I think I've finally found a film she's actually quite good in. In fact, taking away Thelma Ritter's scene stealing proficiency, Kelly could be the best part of this story. I didn't quite see the chemistry between her and Stewart, but she just radiates like a nuclear reactor every moment she is onscreen. Now to the film itself...I liked it, but I don't consider it a masterpiece, as it tended to lollygag at times. Where the film shines is when it focuses on the voyeurism which is pretty much inherent in all of us. So much has been written about this film, that I'm not going to go any further. But I do want to mention one scene that I thought was quite subtle and quite brilliant. In the beginning of the film, Jeff is going out of his way to try to talk himself out of becoming serious with Lisa. He sees themselves as polar opposites, and that she could never conform to his adventurous, hand to mouth lifestyle. But when Lisa returns from Thorwald's apartment after delivering a note questioning the whereabouts of Thorwald's wife, and she is all agog at the adrenaline rush she is experiencing after almost being caught, Hitchcock does a quick shot of Jeff smiling in heavenly bliss. The shot only lasts for about two seconds, but at that moment, the viewer, as well as Jeff, know that she is the perfect soul mate for him. For me, that was the best part of the film, but if you blinked, you missed it.
Horrible Bosses (2011) 3.5/5 - I love a good comedy, but in the last few years, that has been like finding a needle in a haystack. I don't care for Adam Sandler, Will Ferrell, or just about anyone who had a stint on SNL in the last 15 years. The last good comedy I watched was probably The 40 Year Old Virgin, and that was made seven years ago. So it was refreshing to watch a comedy that doesn't follow in the footsteps of the typical fare that Hollywood has been cranking out for awhile. This film had moments of gutbusting hilarity with characters who were believable, not ridiculously unreal. It did tend to have a few moments that kind of lagged in the middle, but when the first boss meets his fate, it shifted back into high gear. I only wish they would have had more scenes with Colin Farrell, he was an absolute scene stealer every second he is onscreen. Kudos also to Jennifer Aniston. I've never understood the fascination with her, but in the role of the psycho bitch whore boss, she was perfect. Now I can only hope that they won't ruin it by deciding to make a sequel, this was good enough.
On the other hand...
Bridesmaids (2011) 1/5 - FFS, I wish they would just cancel Saturday Night Live so that the world wouldn't be subjected to the unfunny solo ventures of their lame alumni. My wife and I did not once, even blurt out a mild chuckle during this piece of shit. Trying excruciatingly hard to be The Hangover on estrogen, this plodded along like a string of endless, cringe worthy skits from that long since banal show. I really felt bad for Jill Clayburgh, what a way to end a career. I can guarantee that I won't be watching any sequel that springs forth from the pen of Kristen Wiig. She may not be as unfunny as Amy Poehler, but she's just as one dimensional.
What the buggery-bollocks is "lollygag"? :laugh:
Pleasantly surprised you liked this. I was fascinated by the poor reception the film received considering it actually seemed to try and have a plot -a movie savvy one at that- which it saw through to the end.
People seemed to obsess over how "offensive" Aniston's character was, which I just couldn't understand. I mean, consider how crude a lot of comedy is these days, with no restraint shown, and Horrible Bosses dares to show an attractive woman using her sexuality as a weapon and suddenly everyone develops a conscience. Bizarre. Especially when it fed into such a strong character trait for her employee (he doesn't give in) and just imagine the horror had the roles been reversed.
Actually, did you like Hangover?
I thought Bridesmaids did quite well to be the female equivalent and, trust me on this, it is infinitely better than the awful Hangover 2.
Whose accent did you think was exagerrated?
Whose accent did you think was exagerrated?
It wasn't this film that I made this comment for, it's for the many other films in which I own an R2 DVD, which don't have subtitles. And the speech impediment I mean is the staggering amount of people who have a pronounced problem with the letter R in your country. It's as if they all studied speech under Professor Elmer Fudd or are garging with alum powder. I've noticed this a lot when watching war documentaries made in the UK. You're used to this and it probably seems unnoticeable to you, but man, it makes it a chore for me sometimes to watch a DVD. :stars:
Here she is, and ironically, being interviewed by Jonathan Ross, who gets flack because he can't pronounce the letter "R"! :laugh:
The unnamed narrator describes the qualities of Ligeia, a beautiful, passionate and intellectual woman, raven-haired and dark-eyed, that he thinks he remembers meeting "in some large, old decaying city near the Rhine." He is unable to recall anything about the history of Ligeia, including her family's name, but remembers her beautiful appearance. Her beauty, however, is not conventional. He describes her as emaciated, with some "strangeness." He describes her face in detail, from her "faultless" forehead to the "divine orbs" of her eyes. They marry, and Ligeia impresses her husband with her immense knowledge of physical and mathematical science, and her proficiency in classical languages. She begins to show her husband her knowledge of metaphysical and "forbidden" wisdom.
After an unspecified length of time Ligeia becomes ill, struggles internally with human mortality, and ultimately dies. The narrator, grief-stricken, buys and refurbishes an abbey in England. He soon enters into a loveless marriage with "the fair-haired and blue-eyed Lady Rowena Trevanion, of Tremaine."
In the second month of the marriage, Rowena begins to suffer from worsening fever and anxiety. One night, when she is about to faint, the narrator pours her a goblet of wine. Drugged with opium, he sees (or thinks he sees) drops of "a brilliant and ruby colored fluid" fall into the goblet. Her condition rapidly worsens, and a few days later she dies and her body is wrapped for burial.
As the narrator keeps vigil overnight, he notices a brief return of color to Rowena's cheeks. She repeatedly shows signs of reviving, before relapsing into apparent death. As he attempts resuscitation, the revivals become progressively stronger, but the relapses more final. As dawn breaks, and the narrator is sitting emotionally exhausted from the night's struggle, the shrouded body revives once more, stands and walks into the middle of the room. When he touches the figure, its head bandages fall away to reveal masses of raven hair and dark eyes: Rowena has transformed into Ligeia.
Oh wow ... I never thought " ... how it wanted to be a hip amalgamation of Say Anything and Ferris Bueller's Day Off ... " but I have always enjoyed it. What made you think that?
5 Centimeters per Second (2007) 88/100
Yes it is and it's the first anime film I've ever liked!
Yes it is and it's the first anime film I've ever liked!
Thanks, I did wonder as you hadn't previously liked the recommendations received. I have now ordered this.
Yes it is and it's the first anime film I've ever liked!
Thanks, I did wonder as you hadn't previously liked the recommendations received. I have now ordered this.
I thoroughly recommend Princess to you both:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Princess-DVD-Thure-Lindhardt/dp/B000W47N72/ref=sr_1_3?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1363301359&sr=1-3
I really enjoy reading your reviews! Alot of great older classics. Giving me some great ideas =)
Can i ask you this? Do you have a favorite movie? Or is that a difficult question?
As you can see, I used to write longer reviews back then, but time and the disappearance of Jon from this forum have lessened my interest in writing in depth reviews. I've lost my muse. :laugh:
Here's a link (http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,5789.msg100129.html#msg100129) to all my longer reviews. If you see Jon disagreeing with me on something, dive into the rest of the thread, because everyone hear will agree with me, there's bound to be fireworks.
George Washington is a greedy, slave owning, aristocratic hypocrite whose sole mission was to insure his wealth and status in the colonies.Strangely this is quite exactly what is said about Jefferson in "Killing Them Softly" (except for "aristocratic").
George Washington is a greedy, slave owning, aristocratic hypocrite whose sole mission was to insure his wealth and status in the colonies.Strangely this is quite exactly what is said about Jefferson in "Killing Them Softly" (except for "aristocratic").
And being the cynic bastard that I am, I have to say that these statements for sure hold some truth.
I yet have to find a war that (putting aside the official reasons that are usually only given to ensure the support of the population, which has to do the fighting after all) wasn't fought for this reasons. Money and Influence.
Silver Linings Playbook (2012) 65/100 - Manic film making that drove me crazy for the first hour or so. Yeah, I know, we're supposed to feel the mania that his life is surrounded by, but after 30 minutes of this kind of film making I was close to reaching for the remote and throwing it at the TV. Too many edits and cuts, that it looks like the camera man has ADD and too much caffeine at the same time. Why is it that film makers today have to make every film in the post-MTV video style? I don't think there was one camera shot that lasted more than 5 seconds before the next edit appeared. Have we evolved as human beings to the point where we have such a short attention span that directors feel we need to shift gears every few seconds? As for the story, I didn't care for Cooper's character or family situation, but I did think that Jennifer Lawrence stole every scene she was in. And I will admit that this was probably the best work I've seen from De Niro in a couple of decades, but this film definitely was way over-hyped by the Weinstein marketing militia and rump swab critics.
What the color coding means...
Teal = Masterpiece
Dark Green = Classic or someday will be
Lime Green = A good, entertaining film
Orange = Average
Red = Cinemuck
Brown = The color of crap, which this film is
I liked Brazil too .. loved the imagery. But I think Time Bandits is his best work. I am simply in love with that film.
Moonrise Kingdom is one of those movies where I can be sure that I wouldn't enjoy the company of anyone who didn't connect to the film.
but I think he was more cruising in it.
You know what's going to happen to him and your sad to know that he won't be coming back, both on screen and in real life.