|
Post by katina2nd on Sept 15, 2007 19:57:06 GMT -6
No I didn't know that, an interesting choice, have to say I'm glad she turned it down though, even though she may have done a good job it's hard to imagine anyone else in the role but Kathy, thought she was perfect. ............
Bill Paxton.
What did you think of Titanic by the way, it certainly polarised opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Siren on Sept 17, 2007 21:31:39 GMT -6
I think Reba would've made a colorful Molly Brown. Perhaps too colorful. I don't know if her acting is up to the standards of a film like "Titanic".
"Titanic" is a favorite movie for many. So, my opinion is in the minority. But my most vivid memory of watching "Titanic" in a packed movie theater was my aching rear end. I was ready for it to be over long before it was. I thought it was a beautiful film, even visually stunning at times. But it was overlong IMO, and had an unconvincing leading man in DiCaprio. I thought Kate Winslet out-acted him, and had much more screen presence. Even in "The Aviator", he came across as a boy in men's clothing, to me. I just don't buy him as a leading man.
What did you think about it? Not just kat - everyone's opinion is welcome.
Bill Paxton - "Twister"
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Sept 18, 2007 1:21:27 GMT -6
Yeah a strong rear end was essential I have to agree, pretty long movie. What did I think of it? Well it was only Cameron's name attached to it that was the reason I went to be truthful, and even then it was with some trepidation, wondered how a three hour plus film could be made on the subject that would hold interest. Should have known Jim wouldn't let me down though, brilliant idea to open it the way he did in the present with the underwater search team, and I was hooked almost from the opening moments, by the time it segued back in time I was well and truly caught up in the adventure. Enjoyed every minute of it, all 180+ of them. Now I'll admit there was a bit of "soap opera" about it, and I agree with you about DiCaprio, he has to have the right material to be believable [ badly cast in "The Aviator" as you say ] but thought he was just right for the role of Jack, as was Kate as the rebellious Rose, and there was a good chemistry between them. Just a wonderful "old fashioned" adventure I thought, despite it's flaws, superbly "bookended" by the present day scenes ....... yeah think you could say I kinda liked it. Twister, let's go with Jodie Fosters doppelganger .............. Helen Hunt.
|
|
|
Post by Siren on Sept 18, 2007 22:58:59 GMT -6
Interesting, isn't it, how 2 people can feel so differently about the same film? But that's why there's more than one screen at the theatre, I guess. "Jodie Foster's doppelganger" - LOL! I'll wait, and see if any of our compatriots want to have a turn. BTW, anyone seen Jodie's new one, "The Strong One"? I'm looking forward to it.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Sept 20, 2007 19:22:16 GMT -6
Interesting, isn't it, how 2 people can feel so differently about the same film? But that's why there's more than one screen at the theatre, I guess. It certainly is Siren, and a good thing to I guess, diversity of opinion is one thing that makes discussing films so much fun, and so frustrating at the same time as well on occasion. "The Strong One" hasn't been released here yet but I'll be there when it is, Jodie is one of the few actresses who can get me into the cinema on the strength of her name alone.
|
|
|
Post by Siren on Sept 20, 2007 21:48:39 GMT -6
I agree about Jodie's films. She rarely disappoints. I did feel that "Panic Room", while fairly entertaining, was kind of dumb, though Jodie wasn't at fault. In my opinion, the script had some lapses, and some "Oh, come on!" moments. But it was a big hit. So again, I know my opinion is in the minority.
I read that "The Strong One" was, I believe, Jodie's third film in a row to open at #1, and that she drew older females to the theater, which is apparently difficult to do.
Came across a "Titanic" tidbit for you today, while reading about the lovely actress Frances Dee, whose 1934 film, "Finishing School", was on TCM yesterday. She also appeared in the Bette Davis version of "Of Human Bondage", which TCM also screened this week. Anyway, this tidbit is from a post on her message board at imdb.com, so I can't verify if it is true. "The producers of film 'Titanic' offered her the role of the elderly Rose, but because she was visiting her son out East, she said no, so Gloria Stuart got the part."
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Sept 25, 2007 8:17:58 GMT -6
I agree about Jodie's films. She rarely disappoints. I did feel that "Panic Room", while fairly entertaining, was kind of dumb, though Jodie wasn't at fault. In my opinion, the script had some lapses, and some "Oh, come on!" moments. But it was a big hit. So again, I know my opinion is in the minority. Yeah not a great script I agree Siren, thought it was Finchers directorial style and Jodies presence that saved it from being very run of the mill, Jodies one of those rare actors who can elevate ordinary material. Wonder how it would have turned out if their first choice for the role, Nicole Kidman, had of played the part, believe she actually started on it before she had to pull out due to a knee problem.. I read that "The Strong One" was, I believe, Jodie's third film in a row to open at #1, and that she drew older females to the theater, which is apparently difficult to do. Great to hear, hope she appears more frequently now that she's on a roll. It opens here in a few weeks I think, saw the trailer the other day and it looks like pretty powerful stuff, looking forward to it. Came across a "Titanic" tidbit for you today, while reading about the lovely actress Frances Dee, whose 1934 film, "Finishing School", was on TCM yesterday. She also appeared in the Bette Davis version of "Of Human Bondage", which TCM also screened this week. Anyway, this tidbit is from a post on her message board at imdb.com, so I can't verify if it is true. "The producers of film 'Titanic' offered her the role of the elderly Rose, but because she was visiting her son out East, she said no, so Gloria Stuart got the part." Thanks Siren, always enjoy hearing little snippets of info' about films; interesting to imagine how Reba and Frances would have been in those roles.
|
|
|
Post by Siren on Sept 26, 2007 21:06:23 GMT -6
Wonder how it would have turned out if their first choice for the role, Nicole Kidman, had of played the part, believe she actually started on it before she had to pull out due to a knee problem.. Interesting! I didn't know that Nicole was originally cast. She and Jodie have such different "vibes", it would've been a very different film. Jodie has an image of strength and intelligence. So, seeing her outwit those brutes wasn't a stretch. It would've been interesting to see Nicole, who seems demure and glamorous, put in the same position. Might have been more intriguing, perhaps, to see her have to toughen up. Well, since no one has jumped in here, I'll keep the game going. Helen Hunt - "Pay It Forward"
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Sept 27, 2007 20:05:57 GMT -6
Thought exactly the same thing Siren, seemed like a role tailor made for Jodie while Nicole seems a bit demure as you say, although she did a good job of standing up to the bad guy in "Dead Calm" of course she was a lot younger [ 1989 ] and more feisty at that time.
You know I still haven't seen "Pay It Forward" despite seeing some good reviews of it when it was released, have to remedy that someday ............
Kevin Spacey.
|
|
|
Post by Siren on Sept 28, 2007 23:48:01 GMT -6
Spacey - "Beyond The Sea"
kat, I just came from seeing Jodie's latest, "The Brave One". It lived up to our expectations - a very good, absorbing film. And Jodie is excellent. She's already getting a bit of Oscar buzz for it, and I can see why. Terrence Howard is strong as her co-star. But my friend and I marveled at how great Mary Steenburgen looks in it. At 54, she looks at least 10 years younger.
I'm anxious for you to see "The Brave One", so we can discuss the ending.
We saw a preview for Halle Berry and Benicio Del Toro's upcoming film, "Things We Lost In The Fire". Halle's a new widow who moves her husband's best friend into her home to help her and her kids adjust to their loss. Looked good. I plan on seeing that.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Oct 2, 2007 0:01:44 GMT -6
Glad to hear you enjoyed it Siren, opens here on the 11th and I'm looking forward to it, be interesting to compare notes with you.
Haven't heard anything as yet about Halle's latest, if you do see it let me know what you think and I'll follow your recommendation.
One that opens here on the 4th that I'll be seeing is "The Kingdom" produced by Michael Mann, saw the trailer and it had his fingerprints all over it in the style of the direction, looks very good, do you know anything about it at all?
"Beyond The Sea" think you'll have to give my memory a bit of a nudge on that one if you don't mind.
|
|
|
Post by Siren on Oct 3, 2007 7:54:35 GMT -6
The reason my film choice threw you off the trail is because I made an uncharacteristic move: I picked a film made in the last 5 years! This film was about the life of a famous 60s singer/actor/activist, including his marriage to a teen movie star. The movie is named for one of the singer's hit songs. I have heard/read a bit about "The Kingdom". Had even gotten invited to a sneak preview before I got ill and had to miss it. Would still like to see it. It's about a group of FBI agents investigating a suicide bombing in Saudi Arabia. My favorite movie critic, James Berardinelli, gave it 3 of 4 stars, calling it "smart and engaging". Plenty of police procedural stuff for "CSI" fans, and apparently plenty of action, too.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Oct 5, 2007 0:25:35 GMT -6
The reason my film choice threw you off the trail is because I made an uncharacteristic move: I picked a film made in the last 5 years! Yeah, think that threw me into a tailspin, very sneaky on your part. This film was about the life of a famous 60s singer/actor/activist, including his marriage to a teen movie star. The movie is named for one of the singer's hit songs. Remember it now, a biography of Bobby Darin, only trouble is I can't recall anyone else from it, would you have a few handy hints for me? I have heard/read a bit about "The Kingdom". Had even gotten invited to a sneak preview before I got ill and had to miss it. Would still like to see it. It's about a group of FBI agents investigating a suicide bombing in Saudi Arabia. My favorite movie critic, James Berardinelli, gave it 3 of 4 stars, calling it "smart and engaging". Plenty of police procedural stuff for "CSI" fans, and apparently plenty of action, too. Just got back from seeing it and Mr Berardinelli's right on the money IMO, if I could sum it up in one word it would be "go see it" well that's three words but maths was never my strong point. An "action" film but one where the action is complimentary to a strong story and well sketched characters, never less then engrossing for it's entire two hour running time ...... eight out of ten. Going to be a busy period coming up by the looks of things, saw three trailers all of which I'll be off to, Jodies latest of course, a much more detailed preview then the few snippets I saw on tele recently, looks to be strong parallels to "Death Wish" from many years ago. Then there's "American Gangster" from Ridley Scott, a police drama set in the 70's starring Russell Crowe and Denzel Washington, as well as George Clooney's latest "Michael Clayton" a drama set within a law firm, with lots of skulduggery ensuing. Throw in one I saw advertised a few weeks back, "Lions for Lambs" directed by and starring Robert Redford, with Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise, plus the cruisers upcoming "Valkyrie" and I'm not going to be seeing a lot of sunlight in the next few weeks/months.
|
|
|
Post by Siren on Oct 5, 2007 22:51:18 GMT -6
Oooo - hadn't heard about "American Gangster". Sounds very interesting. And what a cast in "Lions for Lambs". Just about makes it a must-see. I am still disappointed that Meryl and Redford didn't co-star in "The Bridges Of Madison County", years back. I thought that they'd have been wonderful in that. (Though, ideally, IMO, Isabella Rossellini would've played the Italian-American farm wife.) As for "Michael Clayton", I just don't like George Clooney as an actor. He's amazingly attractive, and seems like an interesting person. But I think he's limited in range.
One critic described "The Brave One" as "'Death Wish' with a conscience." And I think that's an apt description.
Thanks for the recommendation on "The Kingdom". A friend and I are planning on a movie this weekend. That just might be the one.
There's a new movie out that looks pretty good, for a "chick flick". It's called "The Jane Austen Book Club", and is (obviously) about a group of people who decide to read Jane Austen novels, then meet and discuss them. Then, their lives begin to parallel with Austen's works. Though I usually hate chick flicks, I'm interested in this one because Maria Bello is the star. I usually enjoy her work.
Okey doke - "Beyond The Sea": the leading lady recently broke off a long romance with Orlando Bloom. Her breakthrough role, a few years ago, was as a surfer girl, the leading role in a big-budget surf flick. She played Lois Lane in last year's "Superman" epic. Also in the cast, a super-sized actor who got his big break playing the blue-collar tv husband of an abrasive female comedian. On the big screen, he played a legendary home-run hitter and a cartoon caveman. And finally, another cast member is a short and stocky Englishman who was the only live-action character in a big-screen cartoon mystery from the late 80s, and played J. Edgar Hoover in the biography of a US president.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Oct 8, 2007 20:54:55 GMT -6
Oooo - hadn't heard about "American Gangster". Sounds very interesting. And what a cast in "Lions for Lambs". Just about makes it a must-see. I am still disappointed that Meryl and Redford didn't co-star in "The Bridges Of Madison County", years back. I thought that they'd have been wonderful in that. (Though, ideally, IMO, Isabella Rossellini would've played the Italian-American farm wife.) As for "Michael Clayton", I just don't like George Clooney as an actor. He's amazingly attractive, and seems like an interesting person. But I think he's limited in range. Ridley Scott's name on a movie is sure to get my interest, and this one looked up to his usual high standard, and I agree about "Lions for Lambs" even though the trailer looked excellent the cast alone would be enough to get ones interest for sure. Would have been a great pairing Redford and Streep thats for sure, and Redford and Isabella Rossellini, ummmm, like the way your mind works Siren, would have been an entirely different movie but I could see it working with those two together. I can see what you mean about Clooney, he's a bit, what's the word I'm looking for, perhaps "one dimensional" as an actor, despite that I really enjoy his work, and he has the happy knack of attaching himself to very good projects [ a bit like Costner ] e.g. Ocean's Eleven, Good Night,and Good Luck, Syriana etc. There's a new movie out that looks pretty good, for a "chick flick". It's called "The Jane Austen Book Club", and is (obviously) about a group of people who decide to read Jane Austen novels, then meet and discuss them. Then, their lives begin to parallel with Austen's works. Though I usually hate chick flicks, I'm interested in this one because Maria Bello is the star. I usually enjoy her work. Haven't heard of this one, if you happen to see it give me a "heads up" on what you think okay. Okey doke - "Beyond The Sea": the leading lady recently broke off a long romance with Orlando Bloom. Her breakthrough role, a few years ago, was as a surfer girl, the leading role in a big-budget surf flick. She played Lois Lane in last year's "Superman" epic. Also in the cast, a super-sized actor who got his big break playing the blue-collar tv husband of an abrasive female comedian. On the big screen, he played a legendary home-run hitter and a cartoon caveman. And finally, another cast member is a short and stocky Englishman who was the only live-action character in a big-screen cartoon mystery from the late 80s, and played J. Edgar Hoover in the biography of a US president. Great clues thanks, think I have em all covered, the first one mainly because I just watched "Superman" for the first time last night [ quite enjoyed it ] so that would be "Kate Bosworth." The second is one of my favourites, big man, big talent, "John Goodman." The third is a guy who I used to think was a very good actor, have come to the conclusion that he's a bit of a ham actually, not all that keen on those "in your face" types of actor .... "Bob Hoskins." That gives you a few options to chose from.
|
|
|
Post by Siren on Oct 10, 2007 22:55:14 GMT -6
I agree - George Clooney is rather one-note as an actor. Like Costner, Sally Field, and Gary Cooper, George is pretty much the same in all his movies, no matter the role. But come to think of it, all those folks wound up Oscar-winners. So maybe he's on the right track!
"Superman Returns" had some "oh wow" moments for me - some great f/x. But I found the lead actor to be less than superhuman. He just didn't have the magnetism that Superman requires, IMO. Kate Bosworth is pretty reliable, I think. Granted, the roles I've seen her in have been pretty fluffy. But she does a good job.
Yup, you got the other 2 actors from "Beyond The Sea". I know what you mean about John Goodman. Even when his roles are small, he makes an impression. One of my favorite moments of his is in "The Big Easy", when he's in the office, walking along and pumping an umbrella like he's in a Mardi Gras parade.
But just because he annoys you, ;D let's go with Bob Hoskins in "Mermaids".
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Oct 13, 2007 2:09:23 GMT -6
"Superman Returns" had some "oh wow" moments for me - some great f/x. But I found the lead actor to be less than superhuman. He just didn't have the magnetism that Superman requires, IMO. Kate Bosworth is pretty reliable, I think. Granted, the roles I've seen her in have been pretty fluffy. But she does a good job. Had that clean cut square jawed look okay but was pretty bland as you say; the thing I found most off putting was that they seemed to young, this was supposed to be after he's been missing for five years and yet they look like they're barely out of their teens. Ah well it is a comic book film, can't be to picky I suppose, and Spacey was great as Lex Luther, chewing up every scene he appeared in. Yup, you got the other 2 actors from "Beyond The Sea". I know what you mean about John Goodman. Even when his roles are small, he makes an impression. One of my favorite moments of his is in "The Big Easy", when he's in the office, walking along and pumping an umbrella like he's in a Mardi Gras parade. Yeah and the scene in "Sea of Love" where he sings the title theme into the beer bottle, great stuff. But just because he annoys you, ;D let's go with Bob Hoskins in "Mermaids". Ouch, now that is just plain nasty at least you picked one where I didn't mind him though ..................... Christina Ricci. I'm anxious for you to see "The Brave One", so we can discuss the ending. Finally saw it yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it, well for the most part at least. Jodie was, as you say, excellent, probably her third best performance behind "The Accused" and "Silence of the Lambs" and Terence Howard provided very good support with the chemistry between them being very strong, and I have to agree with you and your friend, Mary Steenburgen looked amazing, one of those lucky people who age very well I'd say. Now the downside to the film was IMO the last third or so where Jodie's character becomes more and more like a female version of Rambo, two scenes in particular didn't really sit comfortably with me, and the ending which I thought didn't live up to expectations and managed to undo to some extent the powerful scenes [ one notable one ] that preceded it. Overall though a very powerful and moving film with a number of memorable scenes, Jodie's first time back on air after the attack a standout among them I thought, just a bit of a pity about the end though. Look forward to hearing your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Siren on Oct 14, 2007 9:26:58 GMT -6
I think you put your finger on the biggest flaw of "Superman Returns" - the actors who played Lois and Superman were too young. I think that's a problem common in movies and tv these days - the networks are after those elusive younger viewers, and keep casting people in that demographic. Trouble is, the actors are often too young for me, a 40+ viewer, to relate to - or, in some instances, take seriously. I think the new "Bionic Woman" is a good example of that. The actress who plays her is 23, and is just too young - her voice and her looks. She has little presence, and, frankly, at least on this show, is not much of an actress, IMO. Meanwhile, though, Katie Sackhoff, who plays the bad gal at this point, is only 27, but has great presence, and is a better actress, to boot.
******* SPOILERS AHEAD FOR JODIE FOSTER'S "THE BRAVE ONE"
Yay! Glad you saw it, so we can compare notes.
About half-way through the final conversation between Jodie and Terrence, I leaned over to my friend and said, "I think they're gonna ruin this movie for me with this ending." And they almost did. I just liked the movie so much, that I chose for the ending to NOT ruin it.
One of my favorite scenes in the movie is when Terrence and Jodie are talking in the coffee shop, and he basically tells her that he knows she's the vigilante, and that he's going to stop her. I thought both actors were powerful in that scene, and that it was a great set-up for a dramatic, and probably tragic, ending. And I would've been completely satisfied if it had turned out that way.
Remember in the old days of Hollywood, when the characters had to pay for their sins? I was prepared for Jodie to pay for hers at the end of this movie. My friend and I discussed various endings, and decided that the best one would've been for Jodie to be fatally injured during that last fight. Terrence would arrive just in time to hear her final words. She would be peaceful, and ready to go and be with her sweetheart. Or, maybe, she would die still conflicted over what she'd done. Of course, her dog would be lying by her side. *sniff* Either way would've been better than the ending we got, IMO. I don't think Jodie's character in this would kill the last bad guy, and just *poof* awaken from her vengeful trance and run away. To me, it smelled of studio interference, insisting on a "happy" ending for the popcorn eaters. Very disappointing conclusion to a powerful film. And frankly, I think it hurt the box office. I think a tragic ending would've stirred more word-of-mouth among viewers, especially if it gave them a "good cry".
BTW, Jodie and Terrence did have delicious chemistry, huh? There was a sexy undercurrent under many of their scenes.
Back to the game...
Christina Ricci in "The Addams Family"
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Oct 15, 2007 7:20:30 GMT -6
I think you put your finger on the biggest flaw of "Superman Returns" - the actors who played Lois and Superman were too young. I think that's a problem common in movies and tv these days - the networks are after those elusive younger viewers, and keep casting people in that demographic. Trouble is, the actors are often too young for me, a 40+ viewer, to relate to - or, in some instances, take seriously. I think the new "Bionic Woman" is a good example of that. The actress who plays her is 23, and is just too young - her voice and her looks. She has little presence, and, frankly, at least on this show, is not much of an actress, IMO. Meanwhile, though, Katie Sackhoff, who plays the bad gal at this point, is only 27, but has great presence, and is a better actress, to boot. Danged annoying isn't it, sometimes feel that if ones over twenty five they don't want to know about you. S P O I L E R S A H E A D Yay! Glad you saw it, so we can compare notes. One of my favorite scenes in the movie is when Terrence and Jodie are talking in the coffee shop, and he basically tells her that he knows she's the vigilante, and that he's going to stop her. I thought both actors were powerful in that scene, and that it was a great set-up for a dramatic, and probably tragic, ending. And I would've been completely satisfied if it had turned out that way. Fully agree, that was the "notable" scene [ one of the best in the film IMO ] I was referring to and which the ending unfortunately compromised badly. As you say it set the film up for a powerful ending but then "copped out" and went for the feel good finale instead. I found it almost impossible to believe that not only would he do a complete about face on what he'd told her, but then would even go as far as assisting her in a murder as well, just seemed completely implausible to me. Remember in the old days of Hollywood, when the characters had to pay for their sins? I was prepared for Jodie to pay for hers at the end of this movie. My friend and I discussed various endings, and decided that the best one would've been for Jodie to be fatally injured during that last fight. Terrence would arrive just in time to hear her final words. She would be peaceful, and ready to go and be with her sweetheart. Or, maybe, she would die still conflicted over what she'd done. Of course, her dog would be lying by her side. *sniff* Either way would've been better than the ending we got, IMO. I don't think Jodie's character in this would kill the last bad guy, and just *poof* awaken from her vengeful trance and run away. To me, it smelled of studio interference, insisting on a "happy" ending for the popcorn eaters. Very disappointing conclusion to a powerful film. And frankly, I think it hurt the box office. I think a tragic ending would've stirred more word-of-mouth among viewers, especially if it gave them a "good cry". ; Interesting to hear you say you were prepared for Jodie to "pay for her sins" because I feel most people would see her as the heroine and completely justified in what she was doing, when as you suggest she was a flawed character acting outside the law, no matter how noble her motives. I've no doubt you're right about the reason it ended in the manner it did, mainstream Hollywood films invariably go for the safe ending even if it's detrimental to the story. I've thought about it and to be quite honest I'm not 100% sure how it should have played out, my initial thought was that after he'd talked her into turning over her gun he [ reluctantly ] arrested her, and I really like your alternative ending which would have been even more powerful. In the end I'd say as a whole it wasn't as good as the sum of it's parts, mainly due to a couple of scenes that were a bit to "Dirty Harry" for my liking, and of course the flawed ending, still a powerful and moving film though, very well written and directed, and of course with excellent performances from JF and TH. Love the way you summed it up ........ "I just liked the movie so much, that I chose for the ending to NOT ruin it." Okay then, The Addams Family, great cast, how about the excellent ............... Raul Julia.
|
|
|
Post by Siren on Oct 15, 2007 21:55:14 GMT -6
***More "Brave One" Spoilers******* I don't necessarily condemn Jodie's actions in that movie. I'll admit, I do enjoy some "Death Wish"-style vengeance in the movies, at times. But I do think that if the film had been made in the 30s, she'd have had to die at the end. BTW, have you ever heard of an exploitation movie called "Ms. 45"? I've never seen it, but did read about it years ago. The plot of "The Brave One" brought "Ms. 45" to mind. Here's a synopsis from www.imdb.com : "A mute woman gets raped twice coming home from work and decides to take matters into her own hands. She dresses suggestively and roams the streets alone, wreaking vengeance upon anyone who tries to take advantage of her. Eventually her secret life spills over into her regular life in the fashion industry." I'll hold off, and see if anyone wants to play off Raul Julia.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Oct 19, 2007 2:11:54 GMT -6
Proceed with caution, yet more ........... S P O I L E R S ahead, yes this means you .......................... Yeah I guess we can all relate to the type of scenario played out in the film, where the bad guys get their comeuppance. There's a show on tele here hosted by Margaret Pomeranz and David Stratton that's been running for twenty years, they're very good down to earth film "aficionados" I guess you'd call them moreso then critics, don't think they were impressed by the ending either, posted a link to their review of it that you may find interesting. www.abc.net.au/atthemovies/txt/s2024615.htmJust got back from seeing Clooneys latest "Michael Clayton" good tense thriller. Never heard of "Ms.45" actually Siren, does sound similar to "The Brave One" doesn't it. Did a quick check on IMDb and also on the Director Abel Ferrara, made some "interesting" films, "Driller Killer" and one that I've seen, "Fear City" with Tom Berenger and Melanie Griffith, good cast, stinker of a film.
|
|
|
Post by Siren on Oct 21, 2007 10:15:18 GMT -6
I agree with Margaret and David on several points. First, that "The Brave One" is a poor title. Doesn't apply at all, actually. Next, as we've discussed, that the ending was very disappointing. And, finally, that they're big Jodie fans, too. I would watch her in anything. They made a very interesting point about the timing of this film and it's similar predecessor, "Death Wish". You know - that the Bronson film was released at the end of the Nixon administration, during the Vietnam War. And that this one was released at the end (thank God) of the Bush Administration during this war. That's an interesting point that hadn't occurred to me. I will be going to their website often. Thanks for the tip! Roger Ebert has a good website, too, which even archives his movie reviews all the way back to the 60s. I enjoy his reviews of bad films (I have a whole book of them), and his "Great Films" analysis. So sad, the health struggle he's dealing with. But he remains a vital movie lover and reviewer. rogerebert.suntimes.com/My friend and I saw "The Kingdom", kat. ******SPOILERS******** He liked it more than I did. I thought it was a good story, well directed. But though I appreciated the attempt at character development in this film, which is rare in action films, the characters in his film annoyed me - Jason Bateman's stupid jokes (we HATED his character)...the guy in the mudhole, joking around as he dug for evidence. And I didn't buy Jennifer Garner as an FBI agent. Somehow, even with her "Alias" and "Elektra" *ss-kicking history (enjoyed them both), I didn't buy her in this role. In fact, my friend and I agreed that her character was a huge flaw in this film's plausibility. A woman would not be allowed to go around dressed as she was, with her head and face uncovered. Even our female US military personnel have to cover up while in that area. So Jennifer's tight muscle shirts, sunglasses, and bare head, not to mention her being allowed to interact with Arabian men, was ridiculous. We thought the film would've been better served if her character had been male, or if she had dressed appropriately, and they'd addressed her feelings on being covered-up and constricted, forced to obey Arabian culture's rules. And finally, we thought there was no way she and Jason would've survived that last battle. With sounds of gunshots right there in the building, the terrorists weren't prepared for someone to burst into the room, and didn't hurry with killing Jason for the camera? We thought Jennifer would've been killed the moment she walked in the door. Or that the huge man at the end would've killed her easily. We also thought it hard to believe that the guy who waited outside at the car survived. He didn't speak the language, and would probably have been attacked by the crowd, at the very least, if not killed by terrorists in the crowd. That they all walked away from that rescue was kind of silly, IMO. But again, Hollywood thinks its audience demands a happy ending, I guess. I know I'm really critical. I mean, movies are supposed to transport you away from reality. I shouldn't think about it so much, critiquing everything, and being so literal. "Michael Clayton" had a disappointing opening here in the US. Some critics think George Clooney is the problem. Here are some interesting comments from: www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/shocker-tyler-perry-beats-george-clooney-at-the-box-office/"Everyone knew Tyler Perry's Why Did I Get Married would do well at the box office this weekend. pre.jpgBut certainly not $21.5 million, well enough to double the gross receipts of Triple-A List star George Clooney's adult legal drama Michael Clayton. How abundantly clear that Clooney's domestic popularity as an actor isn't what the media or Hollywood thinks it is. After all, his Warner movie is one of the best reviewed this early fall (90% on Rotten Tomatoes). But except for his ensemble movies -- the franchise Ocean's 11, 12 & 13 or A Perfect Storm or Batman & Robin-- not one George Clooney-starring movie has ever opened big at the domestic box office despite plenty of hype. But he keeps getting hired as the top salaried star of pics especially at Warner because he's considered a big name. Such is the decision making of Hollywood." "Fear City" - how did I miss that? I'm a Tom Berenger fan. I have heard of "Driller Killer". I think that's in a book I have about exploitation films. Though I think it would be too sexually explicit and violent for my tastes, I'd like to see "Ms 45". I'd probably have to frequently cover my eyes, though!
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Oct 22, 2007 20:59:04 GMT -6
More S P O I L E R S hidden within I agree with Margaret and David on several points. First, that "The Brave One" is a poor title. Doesn't apply at all, actually. Next, as we've discussed, that the ending was very disappointing. And, finally, that they're big Jodie fans, too. I would watch her in anything. They made a very interesting point about the timing of this film and it's similar predecessor, "Death Wish". You know - that the Bronson film was released at the end of the Nixon administration, during the Vietnam War. And that this one was released at the end (thank God) of the Bush Administration during this war. That's an interesting point that hadn't occurred to me. I will be going to their website often. Thanks for the tip! Roger Ebert has a good website, too, which even archives his movie reviews all the way back to the 60s. I enjoy his reviews of bad films (I have a whole book of them), and his "Great Films" analysis. So sad, the health struggle he's dealing with. But he remains a vital movie lover and reviewer. rogerebert.suntimes.com/Glad you enjoyed the site Siren, and it was an interesting point they made about the timing of the two films I agree. A pity their reviews aren't a bit more comprehensive at times but they cover quite a lot in a half hour program, watching them playing off one another and taking potshots at each other is half the fun of the show, after twenty years they fit together like a smoking jacket and a comfy pair of old slippers. I know of Roger Ebert of course but would you believe I've never had the good sense to look him up on the web, so a big thanks for the link, a great site that I've already spent considerable time at, reading his newer reviews and also checking back over some of his older ones, I'll be going back there on a regular basis. Getting briefly away from the subject of films, I concur with your sentiment about the end of the Bush Administration, surely one of the darker periods in American history. My friend and I saw "The Kingdom", kat. ******SPOILERS******** He liked it more than I did. I thought it was a good story, well directed. But though I appreciated the attempt at character development in this film, which is rare in action films, the characters in his film annoyed me - Jason Bateman's stupid jokes (we HATED his character)...the guy in the mudhole, joking around as he dug for evidence. And I didn't buy Jennifer Garner as an FBI agent. Somehow, even with her "Alias" and "Elektra" *ss-kicking history (enjoyed them both), I didn't buy her in this role. In fact, my friend and I agreed that her character was a huge flaw in this film's plausibility. A woman would not be allowed to go around dressed as she was, with her head and face uncovered. Even our female US military personnel have to cover up while in that area. So Jennifer's tight muscle shirts, sunglasses, and bare head, not to mention her being allowed to interact with Arabian men, was ridiculous. We thought the film would've been better served if her character had been male, or if she had dressed appropriately, and they'd addressed her feelings on being covered-up and constricted, forced to obey Arabian culture's rules. And finally, we thought there was no way she and Jason would've survived that last battle. With sounds of gunshots right there in the building, the terrorists weren't prepared for someone to burst into the room, and didn't hurry with killing Jason for the camera? We thought Jennifer would've been killed the moment she walked in the door. Or that the huge man at the end would've killed her easily. We also thought it hard to believe that the guy who waited outside at the car survived. He didn't speak the language, and would probably have been attacked by the crowd, at the very least, if not killed by terrorists in the crowd. That they all walked away from that rescue was kind of silly, IMO. But again, Hollywood thinks its audience demands a happy ending, I guess. I know I'm really critical. I mean, movies are supposed to transport you away from reality. I shouldn't think about it so much, critiquing everything, and being so literal. Sorry to hear you didn't enjoy it that much, hope it wasn't my recommendation that swayed you into seeing it, I feel like I should offer you a refund on your ticket. And hey, nothing wrong with being critical, actually pretty much agree with most of what you say, Jason Bateman's character was the weak link, and Jennifer Garner's character dressing and acting in the manner she did was a flaw, strange really considering it was addressed early on when she was forced to put on a jacket, but from then on it was just apparently overlooked for some reason. Also the final confrontation did stretch credibility somewhat, you'd expect one or more of the team to be killed or at the very least seriously injured, and it would have enhanced the film rather then detracted from it if this had of happened, certainly would have made it more plausible. After reading all that you must be wondering why I recommended it; well I thought the good points far outweighed the flaws, a strong story, very well directed, much in the style of Michael Mann, and the interaction between Jamie Foxx's character and that of Ashraf Barhom [ Colonel Faris Al Ghazi ] the gradual acceptance of one another which finally led to a real friendship, and the exploration of the differences between the two's cultures, this to me was the real core of the film, and done in a way that was neither preachy or condescending, but in a very natural manner. "Michael Clayton" had a disappointing opening here in the US. Some critics think George Clooney is the problem. Here are some interesting comments from: www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/shocker-tyler-perry-beats-george-clooney-at-the-box-office/"Everyone knew Tyler Perry's Why Did I Get Married would do well at the box office this weekend. pre.jpgBut certainly not $21.5 million, well enough to double the gross receipts of Triple-A List star George Clooney's adult legal drama Michael Clayton. How abundantly clear that Clooney's domestic popularity as an actor isn't what the media or Hollywood thinks it is. After all, his Warner movie is one of the best reviewed this early fall (90% on Rotten Tomatoes). But except for his ensemble movies -- the franchise Ocean's 11, 12 & 13 or A Perfect Storm or Batman & Robin-- not one George Clooney-starring movie has ever opened big at the domestic box office despite plenty of hype. But he keeps getting hired as the top salaried star of pics especially at Warner because he's considered a big name. Such is the decision making of Hollywood." The "decision making of Hollywood" now you could write several volumes on that I dare say, I often wonder how a lot of projects get off the ground to begin with, I'd like to be a fly on the wall when the writer is pitching his story at times and try to understand just how some of the stuff that finishes up on our screens got green lighted to begin with. "Fear City" - how did I miss that? I'm a Tom Berenger fan. I have heard of "Driller Killer". I think that's in a book I have about exploitation films. Though I think it would be too sexually explicit and violent for my tastes, I'd like to see "Ms 45". I'd probably have to frequently cover my eyes, though! "Fear City" - how did I miss that? ............ Ummmmm, just lucky I'd say. Think I've seen bits of "Driller Killer" about a baddie who dispatches his victims [ obviously ] with an electric drill, not a film you'd want to watch all the way through in one sitting, or any number of sittings come to think of it. Have a feeling if "Mrs 45" was in the same vein I'd be covering my eyes as well.
|
|
|
Post by Siren on Oct 22, 2007 22:06:27 GMT -6
So, Margaret and David have been doing their thing for 20 years? A terrific accomplishment. And what a fun way to make a living! Don't feel too bad about not knowing about Roger Ebert's site. I only found it less than a year ago - and he's been a favorite of mine for years! *shaking head and blushing* Until I discovered James Berardinelli, Roger was the critic whose reviews I consulted first. James has taken over now that Roger is not as prolific as he was. Oh, no regrets, kat. "The Kingdom" was not a waste of my time or money. In fact, despite my pick-it-to-pieces critique, I'd probably give it a 6 out of 10. I think you described the storyline between Jamie Foxx and Ashraf Barhom very well. The was, indeed, the highlight of the movie, IMO. Definitely, the films good points outweighed the bad. Kat said, "The 'decision making of Hollywood' now you could write several volumes on that I dare say, I often wonder how a lot of projects get off the ground to begin with, I'd like to be a fly on the wall when the writer is pitching his story at times and try to understand just how some of the stuff that finishes up on our screens got green lighted to begin with." Hear, hear! "'Fear City' - how did I miss that? ............ Ummmmm, just lucky I'd say.".........."not a film you'd want to watch all the way through in one sitting, or any number of sittings come to think of it." You crack me up! LOL! Comments like those are why I own a whole book of Ebert's reviews of films he hated. Here's a warning for any among us who are considering "30 Days Of Night" at the movie theater. It has a clever concept - vampires find the ideal feeding ground: a small Alaskan town during the season of no sunlight for 30 days. My friend and I saw the commercial, and thought it looked like great, scary fun - perfect for this Halloween season. We planned on seeing it this week. A friend beat us to it, and messaged me from the movie theater tonight. He said people were running from the theater to (sorry) vomit, and that he himself had stepped out of the theater twice, just to take a breather. Depending on your taste, that report will either make you avoid that film, or hurry to see it!
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Oct 26, 2007 7:31:47 GMT -6
Oh, no regrets, kat. "The Kingdom" was not a waste of my time or money. In fact, despite my pick-it-to-pieces critique, I'd probably give it a 6 out of 10. I think you described the storyline between Jamie Foxx and Ashraf Barhom very well. The was, indeed, the highlight of the movie, IMO. Definitely, the films good points outweighed the bad. Phew that's a relief, don't feel so guilty now, plus I can keep my pennies and go see another movie myself. Here's a warning for any among us who are considering "30 Days Of Night" at the movie theater. It has a clever concept - vampires find the ideal feeding ground: a small Alaskan town during the season of no sunlight for 30 days. My friend and I saw the commercial, and thought it looked like great, scary fun - perfect for this Halloween season. We planned on seeing it this week. A friend beat us to it, and messaged me from the movie theater tonight. He said people were running from the theater to (sorry) vomit, and that he himself had stepped out of the theater twice, just to take a breather. Depending on your taste, that report will either make you avoid that film, or hurry to see it! Checked it out and it sounds interesting, not really sure if it's one I'd go to see though; from your friends description I'd say if I do I'll make sure not to have anything to eat beforehand, be somewhat embarrassing to upchuck in the theater. You still plan on seeing it or has his report turned you off?
|
|
|
Post by Siren on Oct 26, 2007 23:15:01 GMT -6
Welcome back, kat! We've missed you! And I got concerned about you tonight. I heard that there was a tornado in New South Wales. They even showed video of it on the local weather report. Strange, seeing a tornado rotating in the opposite direction than those here in the U.S. I hope all is well where you are.
Nooooo...I think I'll pass on "30 Days Of Night". Mark gave me more details the next day, and...yuck. Nope - too graphic for me. Too bad, too. It looked like a good sort of scary. I'm glad Mark warned me.
Speaking of graphically violent movies, I was amazed at how many there were when we visited the video store tonight. It's a disturbing comment on our society, I think, that the store is obviously responding to customer demand. Most of these films were "unrated", meaning they can go as far as they want, without worrying about their rating. But considering how horrifyingly graphic R-rated movies are now, it's hard for me to imagine what it would take to be rated X. The sad and scary thing is, children have easy access to these movies, both in theatres and at home.
Up next, I'm hoping to see Halle Berry's new one, "Things We Lost In The Fire".
|
|
|
Post by fallenangel on Oct 27, 2007 9:29:55 GMT -6
ok Kat I hope you like pumpkin pie here ya go
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Oct 27, 2007 19:27:59 GMT -6
Welcome back, kat! We've missed you! And I got concerned about you tonight. I heard that there was a tornado in New South Wales. They even showed video of it on the local weather report. Strange, seeing a tornado rotating in the opposite direction than those here in the U.S. I hope all is well where you are. Thanks Siren, time just escaped me I think, didn't even realise I hadn't been on for several days. Really violent storms in NSW, that tornado took out part of an electricity sub-station, and thanks for your concern, needn't worry though as I'm in Victoria, one state down from NSW, lived my entire life in the same city and in all that time the worst that's happened is an unusually strong wind storm that blew two tiles off the roof, so compared to other places we're spared the extremes of Mother Nature thank goodness. Nooooo...I think I'll pass on "30 Days Of Night". Mark gave me more details the next day, and...yuck. Nope - too graphic for me. Too bad, too. It looked like a good sort of scary. I'm glad Mark warned me. That's handy to have your own "early warning system" with regards to films, a pity as you say though, the premise sounds quite interesting. Speaking of graphically violent movies, I was amazed at how many there were when we visited the video store tonight. It's a disturbing comment on our society, I think, that the store is obviously responding to customer demand. Most of these films were "unrated", meaning they can go as far as they want, without worrying about their rating. But considering how horrifyingly graphic R-rated movies are now, it's hard for me to imagine what it would take to be rated X. The sad and scary thing is, children have easy access to these movies, both in theatres and at home. Couldn't agree more, it seems like a case of simply pushing the boundaries to see how far they can go doesn't it, like action movies where each one has to have bigger and more spectacular stunts, horror movies have to "top" one another on the amount of gore they can display apparently, a disturbing comment on our society as you say. And the other sad part about it is that most of them are just so bad, a horror movie has to have suspense and a real feeling of dread to make it work, something that most of those being made today wouldn't know the first thing about; just look at what does well at the box office today, films like the "Saw" trilogy, I'll admit I haven't seen any of them, but just the premise is enough to turn your stomach. Up next, I'm hoping to see Halle Berry's new one, "Things We Lost In The Fire". Hope you enjoy it, I'll await your report.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Oct 27, 2007 19:32:12 GMT -6
ok Kat I hope you like pumpkin pie here ya go Ahhhh, had a sense of foreboding when I saw your name on here Yinyang, figured there may be a Pumpkin pie in my not to distant future. Ummmm, who to hand it off to?
|
|
|
Post by Siren on Oct 29, 2007 7:32:17 GMT -6
Welcome back, kat! We've missed you! And I got concerned about you tonight. I heard that there was a tornado in New South Wales. They even showed video of it on the local weather report. Strange, seeing a tornado rotating in the opposite direction than those here in the U.S. I hope all is well where you are. Thanks Siren, time just escaped me I think, didn't even realise I hadn't been on for several days. Really violent storms in NSW, that tornado took out part of an electricity sub-station, and thanks for your concern, needn't worry though as I'm in Victoria, one state down from NSW, lived my entire life in the same city and in all that time the worst that's happened is an unusually strong wind storm that blew two tiles off the roof, so compared to other places we're spared the extremes of Mother Nature thank goodness. That's handy to have your own "early warning system" with regards to films, a pity as you say though, the premise sounds quite interesting. Couldn't agree more, it seems like a case of simply pushing the boundaries to see how far they can go doesn't it, like action movies where each one has to have bigger and more spectacular stunts, horror movies have to "top" one another on the amount of gore they can display apparently, a disturbing comment on our society as you say. And the other sad part about it is that most of them are just so bad, a horror movie has to have suspense and a real feeling of dread to make it work, something that most of those being made today wouldn't know the first thing about; just look at what does well at the box office today, films like the "Saw" trilogy, I'll admit I haven't seen any of them, but just the premise is enough to turn your stomach. Up next, I'm hoping to see Halle Berry's new one, "Things We Lost In The Fire". Hope you enjoy it, I'll await your report. Glad to hear that the bad weather passed you by, kat. As an Okie, I know how scary that can be. Victoria, eh? Makes me think of Victoria, Canada, which we visited a few years ago. Lovely, especially the Butchart Gardens, acres of manicured gardens with every plant you can think of. Here's a link: www.butchartgardens.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1Yes, you're right - it does seem that gore movie-makers are trying to top each other. And it's scary that the fans of these films will comment on how creative the movie-makers are when they think of new ways to torture and maim people. Truly scary. I think it's partly because this generation of younger views grew up on video games, where graphic violence can be common. I see no benefit to mankind in movies like "Saw". From what I've read in some of my movie books, "Saw" is the kind of movie you used to have to go to the worst parts of town to see, in some dank theatre frequented by folks with wild eyes and grimy trench coats. Now you can pick up "Saw" and similar movies at the corner quick stop.
|
|