Miscellaneous Movie Musings

[innerSpaceman]

Blood Diamond is apparently not being given the glorious exhibition opportunity by a whole lot of people (i.e., it's a box office disappointment), but I don't know why.

It's a terrific actioner ... suspenseful and exciting, with a good conscience against a horrific setting of true tragedy. This is Leonardo DiCaprio's best role since ... um, ever. Jennifer Connelly's still got it. And the Pink (big hunk o'diamond) is the best movie McGuffin in quite a while (with a terrific homage as its ultimate fate).

[RStar]

Blood Diamond was better than I thought it would be. Perhaps it's the expectations that killed it in the box office. However, I am not comfortable with these movies that show these poor people suffering. I want to go to the movies to have a good time, not watch people suffer. I don't like slasher movies either.

Stranger than Fiction was another winner. I did enjoy that one.

I saw "Pan's Labrynith" tonight. I felt it was a good story, well done with special effects, and well acted. I didn't go into the theater knowing it was in Spanish with subtitles, but I delt with it. It was an on-the-edge-of-your-seat action movie, but also was pretty violent with a bit of gore. It takes place during a war (1940s Spain) and they had to make sure everyone was dead by killing them 2 or 3 times. It's R rated, and though a fantasy, it's not for the kids.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Blood Diamond is apparently not being given the glorious exhibition opportunity by a whole lot of people (i.e., it's a box office disappointment), but I don't know why.

Perhaps people aren't ready to regret their bling, yet.









.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Blood Diamond is apparently not being given the glorious exhibition opportunity by a whole lot of people (i.e., it's a box office disappointment), but I don't know why.

It's a terrific actioner

I got around to it last night and I'm going to have to disagree. It was a decent genre picture but not a great one. The character development was pretty standard and the ultimate conclusion was apparent from the beginning.

I'm always uncomfortable when an action movie is set against the backdrop of an important social issue. When an entire societal calamity is reduced to an opportunity for one scumbag to rediscover his humanity.

It is very well made and obviously wants to be an important movie. If people see it and decide not to be consumers of diamonds then that is good. But it is easy for me to say that. I've never owned a diamond which made the decision, more than a decade ago, that I never would an easy one.

Plus, I'm tired of movies not being able to focus on the problems of Africa without giving the leads to white actors. I know the western journalist is frequently the avenue of inserting the audience into the story but I am tired of it. That is one thing I liked about Hotel Rwanda and I'm sure at some point some studio executive said "can we beef up the Nolte character into more of a lead?"

ETA: Oh, and I've been told by a linguist friend who knows the languages of those parts of Africa that Di Caprio's accent is pretty darn good. But it is also very distracting since you know it is fake.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

The character development was pretty standard and the ultimate conclusion was apparent from the beginning.

Well, that didn't seem to hurt Star Wars. I'm not comparing the quality of the two; merely pointing out that standard character development and foregone conclusion often have little bearing on the quality of an action or adventure movie.

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

I'm always uncomfortable when an action movie is set against the backdrop of an important social issue.

Hmmm, and I find it quite refreshing. Movies that focus on an important social issue are likely to end up being seen by far fewer people than more standard popcorn fare that plays against the background of an important social issue. Both such hypothetical films should be judged on their own merits as movies, but I am gladdened that more people will become aware of a social ill (and perhaps want to learn more about it) via the popcorn movie than from the arthouse flick.

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Oh, and I've been told by a linguist friend who knows the languages of those parts of Africa that Di Caprio's accent is pretty darn good. But it is also very distracting since you know it is fake.

And why is that? Are you equally distracted by the likes of Meryl Streep or Cate Blanchett when they do work that involves a fake accent expertly imitated? How about when Nicole Kidman speaks with a perfect American voice in a film, despite her native Aussie accent Or why not be distracted by the simple fact that you know perfectly well movie star Leonardo DiCaprio is not the mercenary smuggler with a heart of gold?

To each his own, but if an accent is done well ... I don't see any legitimate objection to an actor performing a role that calls for one.


Did you like Blood Diamond at all as a film, Alex, or were your many judgments against its behind-the-scenes choices simply too great for you overcome?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Well, that didn't seem to hurt Star Wars. I'm not comparing the quality of the two; merely pointing out that standard character development and foregone conclusion often have little bearing on the quality of an action or adventure movie.

I'm not a big fan of Star Wars, either.

Hmmm, and I find it quite refreshing.

I find it trivializing.

Both such hypothetical films should be judged on their own merits as movies, but I am gladdened that more people will become aware of a social ill (and perhaps want to learn more about it) via the popcorn movie than from the arthouse flick.

Not many more people, Blood Diamond is barely going to make it to $50 million and so far is doing almost nothing internationally.

And why is that? Are you equally distracted by the likes of Meryl Streep or Cate Blanchett when they do work that involves a fake accent expertly imitated?

I find it distracting when I am very familiar with a person's normal speaking voice is suddenly speaking with a strong accent. Why is that? I don't know, it just is.

For Leonardo Di Caprio I am very familiar with his normal speaking voice. For Meryl Streep that is true as well. That is not so much the case with most Australian and British actors since I generally only hear them talk in movies where they are masking their native accents.

It isn't fair, but for them it works in reverse. Hugh Laurie, whom I mostly know from House is distracting when I hear him interviewed with his normal accent.

Or why not be distracted by the simple fact that you know perfectly well movie star Leonardo DiCaprio is not the mercenary smuggler with a heart of gold?

To each his own, but if an accent is done well ... I don't see any legitimate objection to an actor performing a role that calls for one.

I don't know why. Why are you distracted by subtitles and I don't even notice I'm reading. Just the way it is.

And by no means am I saying an actor shouldn't do roles that call for accents. But when they do, some part of my brain is distracted in thinking about how good it is, how much work they put into it, listening for slip ups.

Did you like Blood Diamond at all as a film, Alex, or were your many judgments against its behind-the-scenes choices simply too great for you overcome?

It was an ok action movie. Very standard violence and advancement plot. There were interesting things around the edges. Extremely middle of the pack.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

It isn't fair, but for them it works in reverse. Hugh Laurie, whom I mostly know from House is distracting when I hear him interviewed with his normal accent.

Heh, and I used to watch Hugh Laurie in Jeeves and Wooster, so when I started seeing commercials for House it weirded me out to no end to hear him speaking with an American accent. It's one of the reasons I've avoided watching House (that and medical dramas are intensely uninteresting to me).

[€uroMeinke]

We saw Perfume last night. Having read and enjoyed the book some 20 years ago, I was curious to see how faithful it would be rendered in film. A book about scent is one thing, but in the visual medium of film? Honestly, I enjoyed the film a lot, but at least at the outset it relied heavily (perhaps too much so) on voice over to tell you what was going on. That said I think Ben Whishaw did a remarkable job playing the amoral genius Grenouille and his quest for the ultimate scent.

[innerSpaceman]

I know I'll be in the minority for this one, but I found Dreamgirls to be just about the most boring musical I've ever seen. Standard rags to stardom story ... and not a memorable song to be found. Which, seeing as it's the thinly-disguised story of a real singing group that had about 30 hit, memorable songs, I find unforgiveably ironic.

[Gemini Cricket]

I liked "Dreamgirls". I couldn't take my eyes off of Jennifer Hudson. She was fun to watch.

As far as memorable songs go, if you don't remember "And I'm Telling You I'm Not Going" then you have ice water in your brains.


No, it wasn't perfect and it dragged in places but I liked it.

Beyonce's gorgeous. Eddie Murphy was funny. The music was great. The sound was good. The first ten minutes really grabs hold of you...