| Author |
Message |
|
| grace |
 Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 7:56 pm |
 |
|
|
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 3215
|
bartist wrote: IIRC, Grace saw it and liked it. For some reason, my initial dazzlement by Knightley faded. She started her career precociously, but then started to seem kind of one-note. And too much lip-biting.
EDIT: Here are Grace's comments, at the Elba website, back in June 2012...
Thanks, bart -- I've been traveling or would have answered. I will add that with time I've realized that I liked Seeking a Friend... quite a bit despite its shortcomings. There are a couple of plot holes, some way too convenient instances, etc. - but I enjoyed the relationship that grew between Steve Carell and Keira Knightley. And since it's already been spoiled, the world really does end, and it feels a little weird when that happens.
I said it before, and I'll say it again -- I liked Cloud Atlas, too. I don't decide whether a movie good or bad because tastes are subjective. For example, unless there are two films titled The Room, I find that to be one of the most gloriously awful flicks I have ever seen; and any repeat viewings of it are accompanied by lots of alcohol and commentary from the couch.
Re Cloud Atlas, I picked up some of the same things bart did re the development of characters over various lifetimes and didn't feel metaphysically pandered to. I think its length and the spotty critical response is largely the reason for CA bombing at the box office; but if the critical response were overwhelmingly positive, a certain percentage of the potential audience would still moan "Three hours? Waaahhh." Plus, with the caliber of TVs in homes these days (not mine, it's 14 years old), I think some people who might be on the fence about the film's length will wait to watch CA on their 50-inch HD screen and take bathroom and snack breaks at their convenience -- especially since lots of movies are hitting Netflix/On Demand menus quickly after their theatrical release. Or the movie could just suck, because what do I know anyway? I'm just someone who watches movies because I like them in general. But I liked Cloud Atlas. |
Last edited by grace on Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:40 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
  
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 7:56 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
| Have to disagree with Marc on Flight. It starts terrifying and gets realistic and unyielding in its depiction of an alcoholic in denial. Denzel Washington is brilliant in the lead and John Goodman, Bruce Greenwood, and Don Cheadle are marvelous supporting actors. There's also a fine ca-meo by Melissa Leo in a very uncharacteristic role. It's the first Robert Zemeckis film I've liked since pre-Gump. I was a fan of Used Cars, Back to the Future, and Death Becomes Her, and nothing else--until Flight. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:22 pm |
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
Billy,
I think you're prone to liking films like Flight because they re-enforce your negative feelings about booze. What else could explain your high regard for mediocrities like Leaving Las Vegas andClean And Sober? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:44 pm |
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9016
Location: Shanghai
|
Dark Shadows was okay.
A rather uneven film with some very nice scenes and some silly scenes; some scenes looking very polished and others looking rather fake and in need of another take.
The opening scenes are good and then the credit scene is pretty fantastic, ratcheting up expectations.
Very good casting. Eva Green is impressive as a somewhat cartoonish villainess. Michelle Pfieffer handles her matriarch role with aplomb. Bella Heathcote has a nice delicate ethereal beauty, perfect for her dual role. Jackie Earle Haley is good as the weird grumpy caretaker.
But the plot is rather weak. The side characters and side plots really went nowhere and should have been either left out or fleshed out. I felt like a number of scenes needed a re-write.
The humor often falls flat.
I did like when Barnabas Collins sees the sign for the McDonald's being built and associates the Golden M with Mephostopheles. There was another moment that got a laugh (memory fails me).
There were some good scenes and moments.
The film does have a slick style which is impressive in a limited number of scenes.
But most of the humor/quirk of a 200 year old vampire in the modern world just clanked. It probably works fine as a film you catch pieces of on cable -- if you catch the right scenes.
When I was a wee pup, I had a pair of glow-in-the-dark Barnabas Collins teeth with fangs. Don't think I'd put such a thing in my mouth now, but in the 70's toxic chemicals were all the rage ... Wonder Bread was a staple. |
Last edited by gromit on Tue Nov 13, 2012 1:49 am; edited 2 times in total
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Befade |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:50 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 3784
Location: AZ
|
Quote: Bad: lis
11. Cosmopolis
Gromit: Agree |
_________________
Lost in my own private I dunno. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:19 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
Marc wrote: Billy,
I think you're prone to liking films like Flight because they re-enforce your negative feelings about booze. What else could explain your high regard for mediocrities like Leaving Las Vegas andClean And Sober?
Marc--I am not a fan of all movies about alcoholism. There are so many I've lost count, and I almost visibly turn off when another television episode starts talking about "sponsors" and "the steps" and "denial" and that stuff. No, it's too easy, what you're saying. And calling LLV and CaS "mediocrities" is IMO just plain wrong. LLV is a great film which marks Mike Figgis as a genius director, and CaS features great performances by Michael Keaton and Kathy Baker, an amazing final scene, and a great vibe overall.
And the only moments in Flight which were IMO below average were when Washington (toward the end) got a little too explicit about the disease of alcoholism. What I loved about the film was the high-energy and very unyielding depiction of a genuine asshole--an asshole who knew how to pilot a plane but was a loser in every other aspect of life.
The movie also IMO featured the most powerful movie moment of the year--which I won't describe in detail but which you will recognize as having to do with a miniature bottle of vodka.
Something that probably was affected by my attitude toward booze and drugs was the fact that I wasn't nuts about the way Goodman (in an admittedly terrific performance) played everything for laughs. There was to me nothing remotely funny about anything his sleazeball character did. It was interesting, however, and (almost literally) eye-opening.
Incidentally, I thought this was the best Don Cheadle performance I've ever seen, and he's given some wonderful ones (along with a terrible one in the Oceans films).
But in short, I found Flight a riveting movie and a welcome return to excellence by the too-long MIA Zemeckis. (Yes, I pretty much loathed Forrest Gump.) |
Last edited by billyweeds on Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:24 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
| I certainly agree with Billy about LLV. Haven't seen CaS. On the opposite side from Billy, I don't see movies that are about alcoholics (drunkards), and their problems then drying out etc. LLV is not about that though. It's about a guy who decides to drink himself to death. I don't think that fits what Marc wrote about Billy's preferences. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:26 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
| Gary is right about the thrust of LLV. I found it closer to Rocky than to The Lost Weekend. When people say they find LLV depressing, my reaction is amazement. To me, it's a success story. The guy wanted to kill himself by alcohol and he succeeded. Whether or not I agree with his choice is beside the point. That's what makes the movie so unique and fantastic. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| knox |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:32 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 1246
Location: St. Louis
|
billyweeds wrote: Gary is right about the thrust of LLV. I found it closer to Rocky than to The Lost Weekend. When people say they find LLV depressing, my reaction is amazement. To me, it's a success story. The guy wanted to kill himself by alcohol and he succeeded. Whether or not I agree with his choice is beside the point. That's what makes the movie so unique and fantastic.
I don't think calling LLV "depressing" is necessarily meant as critique. It is unique and fantastic film, yes, but watching "success" when it is the success of self-annihilation can be depressing. I can't help but think you use the phrase "success story" with a little tinge of irony? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
| Billy, I just read your update; I thought Forrest Gump was crap too. Tom Hanks was in some movies that were lauded but actually crap. Philadelphia was another one. The only thing I liked about the movie was Springsteen's song and the performance of Denzel Washington, believe it or not. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| knox |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:34 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 1246
Location: St. Louis
|
| Grace, agree with your take on who will WFV to see Cloud Atlas. Is Cloud Atlas not a bad title for a film that proves to be a bladder-buster? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I didn't find LLV depressing. I did find it touching and I also found it funny in a sort of dark way. Cage and Shue carry the film on their shoulders all the way down the field for a touchdown. I don't think I'd seen Shue before that. I fell in love with her.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:52 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
marantzo wrote: Billy, I just read your update; I thought Forrest Gump was crap too. Tom Hanks was in some movies that were lauded but actually crap. Philadelphia was another one. The only thing I liked about the movie was Springsteen's song and the performance of Denzel Washington, believe it or not.
Totally agree. IMO Washington totally stole the movie. Hanks is a blah actor except when he does comedy, at which he is exceptional. The worst thing that ever happened to him was winning two back-to-back Oscars for two mediocre (Gump) or bad (Philly) performances in more-or-less serious roles which convinced him he was a marvelous dramatic actor. He is still a marvelous comic actor, but hardly ever shows it any more. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| grace |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:02 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 3215
|
knox wrote: Grace, agree with your take on who will WFV to see Cloud Atlas. Is Cloud Atlas not a bad title for a film that proves to be a bladder-buster?
He he. However, my bladder was not challenged at all by Cloud Atlas, and I looked at my watch but once, merely curious how much time had passed. During the LOTR flicks (and I only did the first two, the "short" ones), I was checking the watch constantly and couldn't wait for them to be over. Different strokes, mileage varies, whatever maxim one would like to apply should go here.
Funny, though - we always scoff at movie snackers and their inability to go for two hours without eating/drinking. Yet at CA, the hub got popcorn.
Me: Provisions?
Him: Hey, it's three hours long.....
But the popcorn was really good. (Fresh made, butter optional.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
When I finish my popcorn I just pick my teeth and watch the rest of the movie with no desire for anymore snacks.
I'm sure you are all very enlightened by my movie watching habits. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
