Miscellaneous Movie Musings - Page 149

innerSpaceman · 01-05-2007, 08:27 PM

I looooooved Stranger Than Fiction, the Charlie Kaufmanesque tale of a fictional character becoming aware of his existence as a fictional character, told with a much lighter touch and greater accessibility than Charlie Kaufman might afford.

Maybe I'm a sucker for gimmick flix ... but as long as they don't flub it, I find the exploration of bizarro concepts to be quite rewarding and highly entertaining. Will Ferrell is great in a rare non-slapstick role as Harry Crick, the main character in a novel being haltingly written by Emma Thompson, who's suffering from writer's block.

He's a soulless, by the numbers, socially-inept IRS auditor whose life takes a sharp awakening when he starts to hear author Emma's voice in his head, narrating his life as she writes her novel. With help from a literary professor played by Dustin Hoffman, Ferrell embarks on a voyage of discovery - yada, yada - as he tries to prevent his death by the author who's out to kill him, er, her character.

Growing out of the fun gimmick concept is a film with laughs and sweetness that I highly recommend.

Babette · 01-06-2007, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

I saw "Dreamgirls" with Babette today. I liked it. I thought Hudson's song was amazing. Loved that. Parts of the movie dragged but for the most part I liked it.

It was definitely adapted from a stage musical. The "first act" a little choppy with transitions, etc. But Jennifer Hudson was phenomenal! I was very moved by her voice. Costumes were fun too. I couldn't take Eddie Murphy seriously, he made me giggle when I wasn't supposed to. The movie was nice, but her performance made it so. Thanks for joining us GC

innerSpaceman · 01-06-2007, 11:07 AM

oooh, I'll probably be seeing Dreamgirls tonight (the screener finally arrived ... sheesh, do they expect me to actually deal with grubby theaters and their loudmouthed patrons?)

Has anyone in the world besides me seen Infamous? It's the story of Truman Capote writing "In Cold Blood." Sound familiar? That's because a more famous movie dealt with the same subject matter just last year (I forget ... was it called Capote or The Truman Show?)

This one took a much lighter touch, but the gravitas of an excellent actor such as Phillip Seymour Hoffman was sorely missing. Instead, the lead role was played by an unknown little troll of a man by the name of Toby Jones. But it's not like they couldn't afford real actors. He was surrounded by the likes of Sigourney Weaver, Gwyneth Paltrow, Isabella Rossellini, Jeff Daniels, and the film co-starred Sandra Bullock as Truman's best-friend fellow author, Nelle Harper Lee, and none other than the new James Bond, Daniel Craig, as Perry Smith, the murderer with whom Truman falls in love.

The airier mood left less to be disappointed about, and Truman Capote is portrayed far more sympathetically (if much more over the top) in this version .. with a bit of the remorseful and maturing character arc that I complained was lacking in the earlier film.

Still ... the Hoffman version, though it left me cold, was a far more polished affair, and the lead performance aptly deserving of perhaps 83% of the praise and awards it garnered. Now that I've seen both films, with the latter treating the proceedings with a bit more silliness (especially as concerns the love aspect between Capote and James Bond, er, Perry Smith) ... I guess I appreciate the more serious and damning version after all.

Though it portrayed Capote unfavorably in my mind, having him remain - despite his attraction to Perry - detached, manipulative and immature to the end ... that is perhaps fitting for a film about the creation of "In Cold Blood" - a title that could just as well be referring to its author as to the grisly murders in Kansas or the grinding wheels of death penalty retribution.

flippyshark · 01-06-2007, 11:26 AM

i'm actually very interested in seeing and comparing the two Capote movies. (I've seen neither.)

Where DO you get all these delicious screeners? Where do I sign up? (I'm going to a grubby theater to see Dreamgirls this very day.)

Gemini Cricket · 01-06-2007, 12:24 PM

Well, as much as I used to love getting screeners, I must say that watching some of these movies on a TV is doing yourself a disservice, my dearest Stevie. "Pan", "Dreamgirls", "Iwo Jima", "Harold and Kumar Go to Burkina Faso"... these are all big screen movies with mega-sound moments. I'd wait until the crowds die down and see 'em in the theatre. My 2 cents.
Besides, who wants to see that warning go across the screen every 10 minutes or so?

mousepod · 01-06-2007, 12:34 PM

I'm with GC. The only time I resort to screeners is in the short time leading up to the Oscars. If a nominated film is no longer in the theaters and isn't yet out on DVD, I'll go for the screener. I watched about 3 minutes of the Pan's Labyrinth screener a month or so ago (an exception to my rule - I was too excited to see it) and bailed once I saw the annoying watermark. I'm glad I saw it on the big screen.

Ghoulish Delight · 01-06-2007, 01:19 PM

Pining for the fjords?!

Gn2Dlnd · 01-06-2007, 03:08 PM

'E's not pining, 'e's passed ON!

Why are we doing this?

innerSpaceman · 01-06-2007, 03:39 PM

Frankly, if my friends liked going to the movies together more, I would see more movies. But weeknights are out of the question, and weekends are blessedly filled with friends. And I wouldn't trade my friends for anything, even if they're not the movie-going types - for the most part.

Screeners is IT if I want to see these films. I'm not giving up any of my limited socializing time to sit in a darkened theater alone (though I did rush to see Children of Men last week at a movie house, because I couldn't wait ... and it didn't disappoint).

I realize I'm not giving these films the glorious exhibition opportunity they deserve, but you could say the same for most of my Netflix queue throughout the year.

innerSpaceman · 01-06-2007, 09:39 PM

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).

01-05-2007, 08:27 PM	#1481
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I looooooved Stranger Than Fiction, the Charlie Kaufmanesque tale of a fictional character becoming aware of his existence as a fictional character, told with a much lighter touch and greater accessibility than Charlie Kaufman might afford. Maybe I'm a sucker for gimmick flix ... but as long as they don't flub it, I find the exploration of bizarro concepts to be quite rewarding and highly entertaining. Will Ferrell is great in a rare non-slapstick role as Harry Crick, the main character in a novel being haltingly written by Emma Thompson, who's suffering from writer's block. He's a soulless, by the numbers, socially-inept IRS auditor whose life takes a sharp awakening when he starts to hear author Emma's voice in his head, narrating his life as she writes her novel. With help from a literary professor played by Dustin Hoffman, Ferrell embarks on a voyage of discovery - yada, yada - as he tries to prevent his death by the author who's out to kill him, er, her character. Growing out of the fun gimmick concept is a film with laughs and sweetness that I highly recommend.
	Submit to Quotes

01-06-2007, 11:07 AM	#1483
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	oooh, I'll probably be seeing Dreamgirls tonight (the screener finally arrived ... sheesh, do they expect me to actually deal with grubby theaters and their loudmouthed patrons?) Has anyone in the world besides me seen Infamous? It's the story of Truman Capote writing "In Cold Blood." Sound familiar? That's because a more famous movie dealt with the same subject matter just last year (I forget ... was it called Capote or The Truman Show?) This one took a much lighter touch, but the gravitas of an excellent actor such as Phillip Seymour Hoffman was sorely missing. Instead, the lead role was played by an unknown little troll of a man by the name of Toby Jones. But it's not like they couldn't afford real actors. He was surrounded by the likes of Sigourney Weaver, Gwyneth Paltrow, Isabella Rossellini, Jeff Daniels, and the film co-starred Sandra Bullock as Truman's best-friend fellow author, Nelle Harper Lee, and none other than the new James Bond, Daniel Craig, as Perry Smith, the murderer with whom Truman falls in love. The airier mood left less to be disappointed about, and Truman Capote is portrayed far more sympathetically (if much more over the top) in this version .. with a bit of the remorseful and maturing character arc that I complained was lacking in the earlier film. Still ... the Hoffman version, though it left me cold, was a far more polished affair, and the lead performance aptly deserving of perhaps 83% of the praise and awards it garnered. Now that I've seen both films, with the latter treating the proceedings with a bit more silliness (especially as concerns the love aspect between Capote and James Bond, er, Perry Smith) ... I guess I appreciate the more serious and damning version after all. Though it portrayed Capote unfavorably in my mind, having him remain - despite his attraction to Perry - detached, manipulative and immature to the end ... that is perhaps fitting for a film about the creation of "In Cold Blood" - a title that could just as well be referring to its author as to the grisly murders in Kansas or the grinding wheels of death penalty retribution.
	Submit to Quotes

01-06-2007, 11:26 AM	#1484
flippyshark Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 2,852	i'm actually very interested in seeing and comparing the two Capote movies. (I've seen neither.) Where DO you get all these delicious screeners? Where do I sign up? (I'm going to a grubby theater to see Dreamgirls this very day.)
	Submit to Quotes

01-06-2007, 12:24 PM	#1485
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	Well, as much as I used to love getting screeners, I must say that watching some of these movies on a TV is doing yourself a disservice, my dearest Stevie. "Pan", "Dreamgirls", "Iwo Jima", "Harold and Kumar Go to Burkina Faso"... these are all big screen movies with mega-sound moments. I'd wait until the crowds die down and see 'em in the theatre. My 2 cents. Besides, who wants to see that warning go across the screen every 10 minutes or so?
	Submit to Quotes

01-06-2007, 12:34 PM	#1486
mousepod You broke your Ramadar! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,635	I'm with GC. The only time I resort to screeners is in the short time leading up to the Oscars. If a nominated film is no longer in the theaters and isn't yet out on DVD, I'll go for the screener. I watched about 3 minutes of the Pan's Labyrinth screener a month or so ago (an exception to my rule - I was too excited to see it) and bailed once I saw the annoying watermark. I'm glad I saw it on the big screen. __________________ "Give the public everything you can give them, keep the place as clean as you can keep it, keep it friendly" - Walt Disney
	Submit to Quotes

01-06-2007, 01:19 PM	#1487
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Pining for the fjords?! __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

01-06-2007, 03:08 PM	#1488
Gn2Dlnd Parmmadore Jim Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Casita del Queso Posts: 3,810	'E's not pining, 'e's passed ON! Why are we doing this? __________________ Does anyone still wear a hat?
	Submit to Quotes

01-06-2007, 03:39 PM	#1489
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Frankly, if my friends liked going to the movies together more, I would see more movies. But weeknights are out of the question, and weekends are blessedly filled with friends. And I wouldn't trade my friends for anything, even if they're not the movie-going types - for the most part. Screeners is IT if I want to see these films. I'm not giving up any of my limited socializing time to sit in a darkened theater alone (though I did rush to see Children of Men last week at a movie house, because I couldn't wait ... and it didn't disappoint). I realize I'm not giving these films the glorious exhibition opportunity they deserve, but you could say the same for most of my Netflix queue throughout the year.
	Submit to Quotes

01-06-2007, 09:39 PM	#1490
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	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).
	Submit to Quotes