Miscellaneous Movie Musings - Page 313

Gemini Cricket · 03-19-2008, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I thought that was my family. Or maybe that's Interiors.

Dear, your family is Aristocats combined with Born Free.

Not Afraid · 03-19-2008, 05:57 PM

Nooooo, not my CHOSEN family, my other, non-chosen family.

blueerica · 03-20-2008, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

Watched "Balls of Fury" last night. I laughed.

A lot. Christopher Walken is amazing. And it's got George Lopez!

Ping-PONG?

I got a kick out of the movie, too...

They have a Peppermill in Wendover and I giggled.

Gemini Cricket · 03-21-2008, 05:51 PM

Elizabeth: the Golden Age
I am 15 minutes in and all I have to say is: ick!
The screenplay is far too choppy, the characters are introduced quickly without even getting to know them and Elizabeth has been portrayed so far as some sort of winky supermodel. Ick.
The editing is by far some of the worst editing I have ever seen in a film. You can barely breathe watching this MTV video style cutting. It's almost flickering in places because the cuts are so quick. I know there is a lot of ground to cover, but a well told story can take its time and hold its audience...
The only reason I don't press eject is because I adore Blanchett and Owen so much.
Ick.

innerSpaceman · 03-21-2008, 06:33 PM

That's harsh.

The first 15 minutes is practically a montage. It's a stylistic hook. It's a set-up. Sheesh.

Warning: The last half-an-hour is very stylistic, too. It's supposed to be operatic, according to the director, Shekhur Kapur.

In between, the pace and styling is more mainstream, but still with plenty of what came to be known as Kurpurisms ... stylish camera moves and angles and fancy editing for stylistic effect.

You might not like the stylisticness. But that's precisely what it is.

I found the Kapur stylings far less sophisticated in Golden Age than they were in Elizabeth, but I enjoyed them nonetheless.

To be sure, an inferior film in every way to the original .... but I happen to like Kapurisms and Kapuristic styles, so Liz II seems an interesting failure to me.

Ok, what about those costumes, G.C.? Did you like them at least?!?

Gemini Cricket · 03-21-2008, 06:51 PM

If a film does not grab you within the first ten minutes or at the very least the first twenty minutes, it never will.

This film is dung.

Elizabeth has been reduced to some sort of Harlequin Romance Novel heroine. It's detestable. She was not a giddy starlet fawning for Raleigh. Her greatest romances were with Dudley and Essex. Raleigh was a favorite but not a love interest as was portrayed here. And what ever became of Dudley? Disappeared. He was a huge influence on her until the day he died. But there's no sign of him. Ugh!

Elizabeth has been reduced to some sort of powerless bimbo in this movie. She was not.

God's Death!* What a hideous film.

Costumes and makeup do not a movie make. It's beautiful if only the shot would stay long enough for us to enjoy them.

His editing is erratic not stylish. It flaws the entire film.

And might I add, there is an air that there's some sort of lesbian relationship between Elizabeth and Bess. Wrong!

*One of Elizabeth's favorite exclamations.

Gemini Cricket · 03-21-2008, 07:09 PM

Might I also add that there are age problems in this film.

During the time the film takes place, Elizabeth would have been in her fifties. The suitors were presented to her when she was in her twenties. 50's would be past her childbearing time.

Also, Blanchett does not look like she's in her 50's.

Also, Mary Queen of Scots was 44 or 45 when she died. She was old and grey (well, you know, for those days). The actress cast in her role was in her twenties. Also, with MQofS, it took 3 strikes to cut her head off. And they cut the best part. When she was beheaded, the executioner picked up her head and her wig came off showing everyone that she was as grey as an old, old lady. AND when her head was held aloft, her lips were still moving in prayer. Why on earth would any director leave that out? It's as cinematic as can be.

AND

SWR didn't command a ship. He was an adviser only. Not only that, but Bess gave birth 3 years after the war with the Spanish not before.

innerSpaceman · 03-21-2008, 07:25 PM

Historical accuracy? Is that your gripe? Hahahahahaha.

Your other criticisms are well-founded ... but I don't find perfect adherence to historical accuracy to be a requirement of a costume drama.

In fact, though, Elizabeth reaching older age was a pretty strong theme in this film ... and good use was made of having the same actress play the role 10 years later.

Sorry if it wasn't 30, G.C. But, Sylvester Stallone aside, it's pretty rare an actor revisits a role 10 years later.

Oh, er ... Indy.

Alex · 03-21-2008, 08:04 PM

And Jack Lemmon/Walter Mathau with The Odd Couple (30 years). And Brude Willis with 19 years between the first and last Die Hard (and 12 years between the last two). And Schwarzenegger with 19 years between first and last Terminator (and 12 years between the last two). And Sharon Stone returning to Basic Instinct after 14 years. And Dan Ayckroyd with 18 years before being Elwood Blues again. Sigourney Weaver's Ellen Ripley spanned 18 years. Paul Newman's Eddie Felson saw 27 years of life fly by between The Hustler and The Color of Money.

Only 9 years for Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy in Before Sunrise and Before Sunset. Of course, a whole mess of people got to watch their characters age in the 16 years between The Godfather, Part II, and The Godfather, Part III.

My favorite, Patrick Swayze waited 17 years to reprise his character form Dirty Dancing in Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights - which was technically a prequel.

All of that means nothing and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It was just fun to think up the list. On topic, I'm closer to GC on this one. It was booooooooring enough that I barely paid enough attention to have an opinion on costuming.

ETA: Forgot about 13 years for Linda Kozlowski and Paul Hogan between Crocodile Dundee II and Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles. I'm probably going to spend the whole night have others pop into my head.

ETA2: And there are rumors floating that Eastwood's next movie, Gran Torino, is going to be a "Dirty Harry returns as washed up retired detective" movie, which would be 21 years since the last Dirty Harry movie, The Dead Pool. But I really hope that rumor is wrong.

ETA3: See, my mind is going crazy now. Also later this year, early next we have the return of Fox and Mulder after a decade.

ETA4: ****, three other obvious ones. Anthony Perkins, 23 years between Psycho and Psycho II. Jack Nicholson with 16 years between Chinatown and The Two Jakes (and if, as has been rumored he tries it a third time it would be another 18 years since that second one). 29 years between The Last Picture Show and Texasville with many cast members returning (including Jeff and Beau Bridges, Cloris Leachman, and Cybil Shepherd). Ok, I promise to stop now. Unless I can't help myself.

Eliza Hodgkins 1812 · 03-21-2008, 09:05 PM

I think I may have liked Across the Universe more tham most, as I thought more than a couple of numbers that stood out. As a whole, the character development was kind of shoddy, but I found myself relying on the music to stir my emotions (which, when it's a musical, I don't mind a bit), and so by the end I was kind of a happy, blubbering mess. Of course, some of that is probably PMS. Heh.

What the film accomplished for me, and which I wasn't expecting, was a stirred up and renewed appreciation for the Beatles. Not since Roxeanne's makeover in M.R. has the use of popular music been reimagined so well on film. I found myself paying a great deal more attention to the lyrics, and I really *liked* the versions of these songs very, very much. I found them all effective and moving in their own way.

Definitely there were problems, but by the time "All You Need is Love" started playing, I found myself believing it. I only wish I saw it on the big screen, because the visuals were most impressive and I probably would have gotten more out of it had they filled my range of vision. Surround sound would have been nice, too.

If anyone ever asks me to recommend a flawed movie worth watching, this would be on the list.

03-19-2008, 05:57 PM	#3122
Not Afraid HI! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 17,108	Nooooo, not my CHOSEN family, my other, non-chosen family.
	Submit to Quotes

03-21-2008, 05:51 PM	#3124
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	Elizabeth: the Golden Age I am 15 minutes in and all I have to say is: ick! The screenplay is far too choppy, the characters are introduced quickly without even getting to know them and Elizabeth has been portrayed so far as some sort of winky supermodel. Ick. The editing is by far some of the worst editing I have ever seen in a film. You can barely breathe watching this MTV video style cutting. It's almost flickering in places because the cuts are so quick. I know there is a lot of ground to cover, but a well told story can take its time and hold its audience... The only reason I don't press eject is because I adore Blanchett and Owen so much. Ick.
	Submit to Quotes

03-21-2008, 06:33 PM	#3125
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	That's harsh. The first 15 minutes is practically a montage. It's a stylistic hook. It's a set-up. Sheesh. Warning: The last half-an-hour is very stylistic, too. It's supposed to be operatic, according to the director, Shekhur Kapur. In between, the pace and styling is more mainstream, but still with plenty of what came to be known as Kurpurisms ... stylish camera moves and angles and fancy editing for stylistic effect. You might not like the stylisticness. But that's precisely what it is. I found the Kapur stylings far less sophisticated in Golden Age than they were in Elizabeth, but I enjoyed them nonetheless. To be sure, an inferior film in every way to the original .... but I happen to like Kapurisms and Kapuristic styles, so Liz II seems an interesting failure to me. Ok, what about those costumes, G.C.? Did you like them at least?!?
	Submit to Quotes

03-21-2008, 06:51 PM	#3126
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	If a film does not grab you within the first ten minutes or at the very least the first twenty minutes, it never will. This film is dung. Elizabeth has been reduced to some sort of Harlequin Romance Novel heroine. It's detestable. She was not a giddy starlet fawning for Raleigh. Her greatest romances were with Dudley and Essex. Raleigh was a favorite but not a love interest as was portrayed here. And what ever became of Dudley? Disappeared. He was a huge influence on her until the day he died. But there's no sign of him. Ugh! Elizabeth has been reduced to some sort of powerless bimbo in this movie. She was not. God's Death!* What a hideous film. Costumes and makeup do not a movie make. It's beautiful if only the shot would stay long enough for us to enjoy them. His editing is erratic not stylish. It flaws the entire film. And might I add, there is an air that there's some sort of lesbian relationship between Elizabeth and Bess. Wrong! *One of Elizabeth's favorite exclamations.
	Submit to Quotes

03-21-2008, 07:09 PM	#3127
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	Might I also add that there are age problems in this film. During the time the film takes place, Elizabeth would have been in her fifties. The suitors were presented to her when she was in her twenties. 50's would be past her childbearing time. Also, Blanchett does not look like she's in her 50's. Also, Mary Queen of Scots was 44 or 45 when she died. She was old and grey (well, you know, for those days). The actress cast in her role was in her twenties. Also, with MQofS, it took 3 strikes to cut her head off. And they cut the best part. When she was beheaded, the executioner picked up her head and her wig came off showing everyone that she was as grey as an old, old lady. AND when her head was held aloft, her lips were still moving in prayer. Why on earth would any director leave that out? It's as cinematic as can be. AND SWR didn't command a ship. He was an adviser only. Not only that, but Bess gave birth 3 years after the war with the Spanish not before.
	Submit to Quotes

03-21-2008, 07:25 PM	#3128
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Historical accuracy? Is that your gripe? Hahahahahaha. Your other criticisms are well-founded ... but I don't find perfect adherence to historical accuracy to be a requirement of a costume drama. In fact, though, Elizabeth reaching older age was a pretty strong theme in this film ... and good use was made of having the same actress play the role 10 years later. Sorry if it wasn't 30, G.C. But, Sylvester Stallone aside, it's pretty rare an actor revisits a role 10 years later. Oh, er ... Indy.
	Submit to Quotes

03-21-2008, 08:04 PM	#3129
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	And Jack Lemmon/Walter Mathau with The Odd Couple (30 years). And Brude Willis with 19 years between the first and last Die Hard (and 12 years between the last two). And Schwarzenegger with 19 years between first and last Terminator (and 12 years between the last two). And Sharon Stone returning to Basic Instinct after 14 years. And Dan Ayckroyd with 18 years before being Elwood Blues again. Sigourney Weaver's Ellen Ripley spanned 18 years. Paul Newman's Eddie Felson saw 27 years of life fly by between The Hustler and The Color of Money. Only 9 years for Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy in Before Sunrise and Before Sunset. Of course, a whole mess of people got to watch their characters age in the 16 years between The Godfather, Part II, and The Godfather, Part III. My favorite, Patrick Swayze waited 17 years to reprise his character form Dirty Dancing in Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights - which was technically a prequel. All of that means nothing and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It was just fun to think up the list. On topic, I'm closer to GC on this one. It was booooooooring enough that I barely paid enough attention to have an opinion on costuming. ETA: Forgot about 13 years for Linda Kozlowski and Paul Hogan between Crocodile Dundee II and Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles. I'm probably going to spend the whole night have others pop into my head. ETA2: And there are rumors floating that Eastwood's next movie, Gran Torino, is going to be a "Dirty Harry returns as washed up retired detective" movie, which would be 21 years since the last Dirty Harry movie, The Dead Pool. But I really hope that rumor is wrong. ETA3: See, my mind is going crazy now. Also later this year, early next we have the return of Fox and Mulder after a decade. ETA4: ***, three other obvious ones. Anthony Perkins, 23 years between Psycho* and Psycho II. Jack Nicholson with 16 years between Chinatown and The Two Jakes (and if, as has been rumored he tries it a third time it would be another 18 years since that second one). 29 years between The Last Picture Show and Texasville with many cast members returning (including Jeff and Beau Bridges, Cloris Leachman, and Cybil Shepherd). Ok, I promise to stop now. Unless I can't help myself. Last edited by Alex : 03-21-2008 at 08:18 PM.
	Submit to Quotes

03-21-2008, 09:05 PM	#3130
Eliza Hodgkins 1812 Sputnik Sweetheart Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Long Beach Posts: 2,685	I think I may have liked Across the Universe more tham most, as I thought more than a couple of numbers that stood out. As a whole, the character development was kind of shoddy, but I found myself relying on the music to stir my emotions (which, when it's a musical, I don't mind a bit), and so by the end I was kind of a happy, blubbering mess. Of course, some of that is probably PMS. Heh. What the film accomplished for me, and which I wasn't expecting, was a stirred up and renewed appreciation for the Beatles. Not since Roxeanne's makeover in M.R. has the use of popular music been reimagined so well on film. I found myself paying a great deal more attention to the lyrics, and I really liked the versions of these songs very, very much. I found them all effective and moving in their own way. Definitely there were problems, but by the time "All You Need is Love" started playing, I found myself believing it. I only wish I saw it on the big screen, because the visuals were most impressive and I probably would have gotten more out of it had they filled my range of vision. Surround sound would have been nice, too. If anyone ever asks me to recommend a flawed movie worth watching, this would be on the list.
	Submit to Quotes