Miscellaneous Movie Musings - Page 307

alphabassettgrrl · 03-19-2008, 04:25 PM

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

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

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.

Not Afraid · 03-19-2008, 05:51 PM

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

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.

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.

03-19-2008, 04:25 PM	#1
alphabassettgrrl Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,978	Watched "Balls of Fury" last night. I laughed. A lot. Christopher Walken is amazing. And it's got George Lopez! __________________ Why cycling? Anything [sport] that had to do with a ball, I wasn't very good at. -Lance Armstrong
	Submit to Quotes

03-21-2008, 05:51 PM	#3
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

03-19-2008, 05:51 PM	#4
Not Afraid HI! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 17,108	I thought that was my family. Or maybe that's Interiors.
	Submit to Quotes

03-19-2008, 05:57 PM	#6
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, 06:33 PM	#7
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	#8
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	#9
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	#10
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