|
Post by obliv326 on Nov 16, 2006 0:55:32 GMT -5
i was curious...what does everyone think about the first wave of holiday movies? i have to say, this year looks like one of the worst i can remember, in terms of stuff that looks absolutely horrible and appealing in no way. the worst offender, for me, so far, is unaccompanied minors. as a film student this film just pisses me off. who knows how many films my classmates and i could have made from the money they spent just on that awful rap song for the commercial alone....happy feet...well, baby penguins are cute, but i dont feel like this is going t make anyone forget toy story o the incredibles.
the fountain..i love darren aronofsky, but i dont really have any feel for this one. if it gets great reviews, i will check it out, but the bad word of mouth so far makes me think i wont even check it out on viideo.
deja vu...one of those things where they throw enough money at an average movie and it does ok, a la the rock...nothing special, but it makes dough...not mine, though.
the holiday...chick flick, and by definition inferior to every movie that ever featured a monster or an explosion
blood diamond? it now takes the "capt corelli's mandolin' award for movie i hope will open so i wont have to see the fu&*ing trailer anymore!!!
eragon? i domnt know. it appeals to me about as much as reading those series of books do...which i avoid b/c i know it will be a 10 year commitment to catch up to all of it, by which timem there will 300 more books to read...and those people tend to tgry and wear chain mail and tunics...
anyway, i'm a little disappointed. usually there are a bunch of movies that look great...
so what looks good? for your consideration?the good german? anytyhing else? anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Timid Wily Lava Child on Nov 16, 2006 3:46:58 GMT -5
Sadly, Tom Tykwer's PERFUME is, apparently, as bad as its trailer, which looks like a stupefying misfire. www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=12352NICE poster, though. DEJA VU is science fiction, by the way. They're hiding it, but basically it's a marginally effective MINORITY REPORT with bigger plot holes. Let's see - CASINO ROYALE getting solid reviews. APOCALYPTO is apparently a big action film, a chase movie, like ZULU. I don't care for Gibson as a director, but that might work in spite of him. And you're right. There's really nothing. Get some good old DVDs - City Of Men, Police Squad... uh...
|
|
|
Post by obliv326 on Nov 17, 2006 1:05:26 GMT -5
forgot about perfume. the trailer.hmmmm...ive seen worse trailers, particularly this holiday season. i would daresay of all the halfway serious movies ive seen that are coming out, that is the one that looks the least horrible..,but it doesnt make me want to rush out and see it.
a for trailers.i mean, the fountain might be good, but i hate the trailer. i am sick of the deja vu trailer...and i know its about time travel. it seems like they are using a sci fo story to drape an action movie...maybe im wrong. id like to be. but tony scott doesnt strike hope in my heart.
BUT re:perfume...yeah. its not what i thought it was...i am aware of it b/c it was kurt cobain's favoerite book. apart from that, i thought it was something else...
i did forget about the robt deniro thing...about the cia...the good shepherd? that loolks pretty good
casino royale...i just dont get into boond movies. i have not seen one in theatres since never say never again. i just dont see myself ever getting excited abuot one, so i wont see that.
apocalypto...ehhh...the trailers dont excite me much
but i dont know...since usu 1 -3 oscar contenders come out of the holidays, i am wondering what this opens for best picture. i would say this weak holiday season is a big help to little miss sunshine. and i think you can send the oscar to the engravers for best director (scorcese). but best picture? i dont know.
but my money is NOT on unaccompanied minors
|
|
|
Post by Michael West on Nov 17, 2006 8:53:37 GMT -5
Killer Penguin is, of course, excited (VERY excited) about Happy Feet. We're going to see that one on Thanksgiving Day on the way to Grandma's house for dinner.
G-Fan is TOTALLY excited about Eragon. The poster and trailer do look good, but I'm about as excited about this one as I was about seeing Narnia. Don't get me wrong, I really liked Narnia, but I was not as excited about seeing that as I was about seeing King Kong.
I'm hoping Dreamgirls is good. It has a great cast. I've never seen the stage version, however, so I have no idea on the storyline on that one, other than it's loosely based on the early career of Diana Ross.
I'm really looking forward to Bug. That one looks creepy as hell, and it's gotten some really good press.
|
|
|
Post by Michael West on Nov 17, 2006 11:07:27 GMT -5
OH! And don't forget David Fincher's Zodiac! Really looking forward to that one. ;D
|
|
|
Post by obliv326 on Nov 18, 2006 20:14:15 GMT -5
zodiac is a holiday movie! okay...thats something
|
|
|
Post by Timid Wily Lava Child on Nov 19, 2006 8:59:20 GMT -5
I didn't know ZODIAC was due out soon either. ...wait, no, it's March. Rocky Balboa looks a lot better than it ought to. It looks like it's going to have good moments, like some people might say of the series "Watch the first one, and the last one." with maybe a mention of #3. Check out the first trailer, not the second (they're essentially the same in content, but the second has been sliced up to be more impressionistic and less informative). Quicktime a1834.g.akamai.net/7/1834/6694/v0001/mgm2.download.akamai.com/6694/Theatrical/ROCKYBAL_t1_700K.movWindows thingee mfile.akamai.com/28/asf/mgm.download.akamai.com/28/Theatrical/ROCKYBAL_t1_700K.asxMy friend Ed Johnson-Ott saw The Fountain and Dreamgirls this week. He has biases. Being a fan, generally, of science-fiction and movies with a short runtime, as well as Zardoz, he was pretty much ready for whatever it wanted to throw at him. On the other hand, he doesn't care for musicals, and really didn't like Chicago - they just don't work for him, leave him cold. He said that The Fountain was interminable. It bored him, deeply and fast. He equated it to Soderberg's Solaris, only with out any of the things in that film that made it worth sitting through (and I liked that one). He said that for one minute he thought, in an effore to pull something sensible out of its morass, that it might be about how Rachel Weiss's character really "had eternity", because she lives in the now, even though she keeps dying, while Wolverine's character does not, because he only lives to preserve a future. But that only worked for about a minute, and then it wasn't about anything again. Dreamgirls surprised him. He said it will probably win Best Picture, certainly it will be nominated. When I asked if *he* thought it should win, he paused and said, "I don't know." Usually he does, and usually he says, after punditting positive for an award, "Oh, no. No. It's not that good, but they'll like it anyway because..." Personally he thinks The Departed is a better film, but this one really impressed him. It is many things he dislikes, only it works. 1 - It's "operetta", think Umbrellas of Cherbourgh - almost everything is sung. 2 - It's a musical at all. 3 - He doesn't know any of the songs 4 - It's over 2 hours long (by 5 minutes, but he's a critic - 2 is a magic number for them) Here's what he liked. 1 - It moves it's story nicely. It's not acrobatic, like Moulin Rouge, nor clever-clever, like Chicago, but just respectful of your time. It knows it's singing at you for 2 hours, and that it has to keep you int'rested, so it does. It does this cinematically, in a way that reminded him of why he loves movies. It also did this by not stopping for songs, but rather having them propel the plot. These people can walk briskly and sing at the same time. Songs are not setpieces. 2 - It looks "glitzy", in the sense of being very nice to look at, but has some substance. It's not like a Phantom Of The Opera, which is primarily designed to appeal to people who already like it, and relies upon archetypal storylines. It makes the effort to earn your interest and concern. 3 - There was one moment where the movie almost lost him. It's telling The Supremes' story, and is at the part where the decision makers are conversing about how the woman who looks the blackest has the best voice, but the woman with a thinner voice is more white-pretty, and so should lead the group. In walks the lady with the good voice, overhearing them, and she starts to sing about what's going on. Ed became aware of his surroundings, and briefly thought, "Oh boy." He said that by the end of that scene, to his shock, he, along with the rest of the audience, had broken into applause. Very energetic applause - in the middle of a film. I guess the movie was screened for critics on Wednesday across the country, first time anyone has seen it compete, and he said the reactions were pretty much the same everywhere. 4 - Usually with the big, Fall films, you anticipate them, and wait for them to come out, and then as you see them, you watch them all drop the ball in some way. He cautiously said that he doesn't think that happened here. He was cautious, because he liked it too much, and wanted it to settle, but then this was the next day after seeing it that we talked. He's still going to either see it again, or check other reviews to see if he's missed anything, but he was pretty sure that it all held up very well. 5 - Eddie Murphy Best Supporting Actor? Maybe, if competition is low, but he is certainly acting well, not mugging, and he plays a real character, a whole person. Jamie Foxx boldly plays a pretty bad guy, but he's not Snidely Whiplash, and Beyonce Knowles, a singer, plays a singer whose character is told repeatedly throughout the movie that her voice isn't the best voice in the group - she even says it to the blacker lady. He liked that bravery, to the degree that it is so. What I got from him was that, while this movie might not deserve to win the Best Picture Oscar it might get, though many lesser films have been nominated, and won, in the past, it is delightfully put together, engaging, substantial, and a lot of fun. I'll take that. Obliv', as to not liking musicals, if you do decide to approach this one, you know there is a threat of a demon on the left shoulder, gearing you to not give the film a chance, even though you will want to, as you would any film, try to take it on its own terms. Chicago's failure for you will give that demon some ammo, I'm sure. Here's a thought - because I have learned that I generally don't care for musicals, it's just that I saw so many of the best ones first that made me once think that I do; and I DO NOT like movies with a ton of singing (Nightmare Before Christmas - this is its achilles heel for me. Every blinking 5 minutes a song starts) - . . . approach this like a music video with a plot. May not help, but it may. For my money, anyone who can watch a music video (other than the performance based music videos I mean) might be able to watch a musical of this particular type (almost all singing), because it is essentially the same thing only longer, and probably better executed. By not having breaks from the singing, it won't lull us into thinking it's a normal film, only to whack us on the head with another American idol moment. It'll just be what it is - a very long song, a concept album, with a cinematic plot to go with it. That may not help, but use it if it does.
|
|
|
Post by obliv326 on Nov 22, 2006 3:19:54 GMT -5
i have to admit the trailers for dreamgirls were misleasding, as i had no idea it was a musical. im glad i do, as i would have been really pissed if that had somehow slipped past me and i had walked into a musical w/o knowing that.
you know, i can take concert films, so its not the idea of watching music that bugs me...i think it really is the songs. musicals, because they have to tell a story, almost by their nature have to think of melody, song structure, and, well, being a sing, second to conveying information. think, if you will, of any of those songs from generally theatre mujsicals where a bunch of staccato high notes are shot off wshile an actress conveys al; the things that scare her about a situation or person...if that song came on the radio, youd sneer at it, turn ot off, and probably threaten to call the station and complain. i just hate the songs...and you know how important music is to me...i have high standards for it. music can heal your soul, and when it is traeted in loess tha respectful fashion, be it by britney spears or the cast of chicago, it sickens me. when you disprespect music, you are lowering the standards for what human beings, as a species, are capable of being.
i have yet to hear a song in a musical that lived up to the potential of music, so theres the start.
then, as movies, they do the same thing that plays do to me...immediately and powerfully communicate their falseness. i am constantly aware, in both the theatre and at a musical, in any form, that what is happening os not representative of anything in my life. not that movies have to be true...but they have to be honest. much as i consider bad acting to be a form of dishoinesty, in that it is attempting to portray somethbing and failoing, i consider all musical moments in those movies t be dishonest...for me, they fail as songs and they fail to convey what yhey are trying to convey.
i think, for the most part, people who like musical;s tend to like live theatre, and that falseness doesnt bother them. hey, good for them. just dont tell me that chicago is the best anythng made in a specific year, a year whoch also gave us a lord of the rings film, whihc as a series i think almost singlehandedly demonstrated the power of what movieas can be.
after all that, though, i prob wont see it in the theatre. i have also heard its a shoe in for best picture, and, well, theyve screwed up w/the category before, i wonder how much longer people wll even continue to care about the academy awards. ill prob eventually catch it in cable or something, and we'll see. what does bother me is that if its successful, then more musicals will get made, and that is, esp n ow in hollywood, where fewer and fewer things are getting produced, a bad thing, since the chance of these being good is almost non existent. (rent, whose trailers were so bad i had to leave the auditorium, is your blueprint there.)
in all honesty, musicasl belong on the stage, imho. i dont see people complaining that they arent wide spread enough. musicals that people deem good play long enough that anyone who wants to see them gets to. if we are going to lose half of the productio schedule to high concept action movies and pre packaged vehicles, we really cant afford to lose the numbers to a musical. i just think the days of them being popular enough to validate that interest are over.
as for dreamgirls...i herard similar stuff about chicago, and i hate chicago so muchb that the only thing about it i wuld watch is the brutal slaughter oof anyone involved with the making of that pioece of s^%t. that it won an oscar is an insult to anyone who ever watched a movie. if that is the best we can do, then we shouod freaking give up...
i will be reluctant to see it, and i will be very reluctant to trust it. if i hear enough people who hate musicals say its good, then ill give it a chance. i still diont see any way that its better than the departed, or little miss sun shine, or whatever real movies in real genres with real actors and real soundtracks come out this year, and i will root against it at the box office, just b/c of what its success means, and the oscars, mostly b/c i am a huge fan of the departed and scorcese should get his due. how great of a movie does the man have to make?
i'm not sure if its a demon on my shoulder...i would say if i get far enough that i am in the theatre watching it, something will have happened and i will be looking fwd to the experience. my wife hasnt expressed inte3rest, and i dont have any friends or family thgat would be that interested in it, so if i get there, it will prob be of my own doing.
but as of now, i dont see that happebning. i think dreamgirls and i should let each other be.
|
|
|
Post by obliv326 on Nov 23, 2006 0:14:43 GMT -5
if you consider it a holiday movie, the borat raises the level. i think a best actor nomination would not be out of line. that movie had me screaming with laughter, and sometimes just screaming...i would raher see borat a second time than almost anything else coming out...whoch sort of emphasizes my original point
|
|
|
Post by Michael West on Dec 8, 2006 16:21:29 GMT -5
I've read several reviews of Apocalypto, and I gotta say that I'm surprised. The thing is getting 3 out of 4 stars.
|
|
|
Post by obliv326 on Dec 30, 2006 23:20:43 GMT -5
okay
well. its been a while, and most of the movies that are out that i want to see i have seen, and i have to say, the season was saved by some surprises, but there are still some real bad spots in there...but, wrapping up...
apocalypto - brilliant, from start to finish. not s violent as it has been built up to be, and consistently absorbing and engaging. interestingly, many of the folks who will decry this films violence were those blindly raging supporters of passion of the Christ, which is a much, MUCH more vilent and disturbing film...and nowhere near as good (and we can talk about this if you want...). certainly, horror fans will fond nothing that will disturb them, and they will get a great, interesting, and oddly warm film. if you have the slightest inclination, see it. if you dont have much interest, see it anyway...its that good.
rocky balboa - sure, we all thought it was an idiotic idea, and we laughed at the trailer, and the thng is, stallone is not the idiot he acted like in the 80s. he realizes what people think about him, aned this is really sort of his aology for the hubris of rockys 3-5, rambo, judge dredd, lockdown, cliffhanger, and any of those other 'action hero' abominations he puked up while he was the biggest box office draw in the world. he has said that he would, given the chance, do it completely differently...make better movies, rather than jump at the money every single chance he got...
this is a film about redemption. rocky is no ,longer a caRTOON, FIGHTING FOR DEMOCRACY, orLOVE, or any other cocept...lets face it, if he had continued in that direction, there is no one lef for rocky to fight but an alien...for the ENSLAVEMENT OF THE HUMAN RACE...
i have to admit, even while i recognized how stupid those last few sequels were, they still get you while youre there...youi do root for rocky, and you feel great when he wins, and its only later, when you start to think about things like plot holes and dialogue that it starts to come apart...but they do have some raw, gutteral appeal, so he gives you that.
and you forget how nice of a guy rocky is...he's a really likeable character, and you want to root for him. he knows how ridiculous this latest trip into the (screen) ring looks on the surface, so he tackles it.
and you walk out of this feeling great, even when you go back and think about the plot and dialogue, and we c an hope he's learbned his lesson, and that rocky will take his chance to go out on top
we are marshall - in the hands of someone capable...steven spielberg, say, or even richard donner, this film could have been a moving, powerful film that woul dare even the hardest screw ever to walk a beat to leave with a dry eye. instead, it botches even the most powerful parts...and i suspect that many of tne events that occurred are a-poc-ra-fil (i gave up trying to spell it). i cant prove it, but they just seem...false. it could be the direction of mcg, who is a hack on the order of brett ratner, or joel schumacher's worst moments. if that is the c ase, not only would it be unnecessary, but it would be an insult to the memories of all involved. i believe this b/c so mch of the other stuff was done by someone who has no clue about the details of the game of football, and feels he needs to explain it in big, broad strokes for people who dont get football.
but i reiterate, there is no reason for that. the power of this film would be in the small, real things that they did to cope. even with mcg toeing the line toward bad taste constantly, it has moments that are just powerful in and of themselves, and i admit was moved to tears several times, mostly thinking about the people involved rather than the scenes themselves.
i really hope that a large part of the student body gathered outside a meeting of the schools advisors and chanted the titular cheer to prove they wanted to keep the program. i hope it wasnt put in b/c it was more cinematic than the collection of signatures...b/c that is just a cheap way out. you owe it to the school, and the town, and the memories of those who lived and those who did not, to tell the truth.
i do, however, feel pretty confident that coach jack lingyell was not explaining the rudimentary aspects of football to players during practice. no. that would not happen...if you have never played sports, trust me...the rules are covered early on, and often, and most of the time, even if you are a basketball or soccer player, you knowe the rules of football.
mconaughey is awful. his worst acting instincts were allowed to go free, and blame the director. he's not a bad actor. i like him a lot actually, and i think a lot of the time he catches unfair flak (i thought he was perfectly fine in amistad. he was absoluutely great in dazed and confused, and that is probably the most clear example of his raw ability, as much of that performance is ad libbed). matthew fox is, like mcconnaughey, inconsistent at best. even david straithairn, imo the best actor in the world right now, and he has been for 20 years, since his highly underrated role in eight men out (and if you want to see a complex, convoluted and almost serpentine plot dealt with in an intelligent, cl;ear, and respectful matter, and done in a sports context, see that film....in fact, john sayles, who directed eight men out, fyi, would be a brilliant director for this story...) comees off a little flat and one note...that is on the director.
also, qny film that has the chanbce to trash bobby bowden, the man most directly responsible for the lowering of standards in sports at every level, and instead gives him a positive pass instead, clearly has its head up its ass.
it is interesting to note that even a bad directpr was unable to sap this film of its power, but ultimately, mcg fails this film, and the folks at marshall, who i could not resopect more than i do, deserve a much much better honoring than the one they get here. i just hope it wasnt dumbed down by a director trying to sell more tix.
wow...thats more than i meant to write...but i would apreciate any opinions on other films you might have seen....and as a horror board, i would hope someone has seen black christmas? anyone?
any good dvd gifts?
|
|
|
Post by Michael West on Jan 2, 2007 7:36:45 GMT -5
I got the Unrated Director's Cut of True Romance. Been wanting that one for a while now. ;D I haven't seen a lot of the holiday movies. I saw Eragon. If you can make it past the first 20 minutes, it's not a bad film. The opening, however, does what most Fantasy novels I've tried to read and couldn't do: It begins with a history of this made-up world and a bunch of silly names. Saw Night at the Museum last night, and I gotta say, I really, really enjoyed it. Not a brilliant film, but a whole lot of fun.
|
|