I should probably start off by saying that I loathed this film. Detested it! Despised it with every ounce of vitriolic h
-
BG43214 — 14 years ago(January 30, 2012 07:20 AM)
I agree with you 1 million percent!!!!!!!
to think that I wasted the time I spent on this piece of junk!!
time that I, or anyone else for that matter, will NEVER get back
the director and author of this mess should be tarred and feathered, to say the least!!!!!! -
DrLovehate — 14 years ago(March 22, 2012 07:03 PM)
I just watched this recently, based on some positive reviews here and several other sites. I have to say that this film is the perfect example of pretentious film making. Every emotion is overwrought and physically acted out with copious amounts of arm flailing and twitching and a bunch of other silly histrionics. I like art house movies, but this one just didn't move me. Never seen this directors other stuff but if it's anything like this I'll be staying far away.
-
-
Sandoz — 13 years ago(June 07, 2012 10:03 AM)
Total agreement. I'm glad others saw through this great symbolic piece of art for the pretentious crapfest that it was. Took a big effort on my part to finally track down a copy of this film on dvd to see, toothank god I didn't pay for it!
Never would have thought I'd dislike a film so much that stars Isabelle Adjani and Sam Neill, two actors I love watching on screen. I guess that's what a pretentious, artsy-fartsy director can accomplish, though.
This is very hard to read, isn't it? -
Tony_Silvio — 13 years ago(February 03, 2013 09:54 AM)
The movie's old as hell. All the acting was bad; even the ones who had good performances also had some tragically bad scenes. That said, I didn't expect much to begin with, and I loved the movie. You have to look at it as a whole; if you think the PI scene (being the worst offender) and a few other ridiculous happenings totally ruined the movie, you are one sad person. The movie doesn't have to be Shawshank to be entertaining or unique or funny or dramatic.
-
franzkabuki — 13 years ago(March 10, 2013 01:16 AM)
"The movies old as hell".
Since when is 32 years "old as hell"?
"The movie doesnt have to be Shawshank to be entertaining or unique or funny or dramatic".
Come again?
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
franzkabuki — 13 years ago(March 10, 2013 01:53 PM)
You were thinking of ME while writing that stuff? Thats of course mighty flattering and all and would likely be even more flattering if any of it made any sense.
Ditto the most recent squeak about some "glaring differences" between movies of today and those of 1981 you seem to be umm envisioning there. But since you refuse to elaborate, I guess no one will ever know what are these radical film theoretical concepts that rattle around in that tiny little head of yours. Pity, innit?
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
Tony_Silvio — 13 years ago(March 10, 2013 03:21 PM)
I was thinking of whoever might read the post. As for elaborating, take a look at your initial response. What I mean is, I've been catching up on and re-watching movies, many of them from the 80's. I notice, in general, the scripts and individual scenes can be much more outlandish (not in the fantasy sense; I mean the little things and lack of attention to detail that make it not as believable); the acting is down a peg from what we expect now and many of the actors are also inconsistent, even throughout a single movie; the special effects are obviously worse, but it's more than that: sometimes they're almost comically bad, and the director must have REALLY wanted to use whatever monster or explosion.
It was a different era and I think many of the critiques people make on this forum are unfair and rather pointless. It's been awhile since I read this movie's forum, so I don't have any specific examples. I hope that was more clear. -
franzkabuki — 13 years ago(March 19, 2013 10:55 AM)
I agree that the quality of the films in general - at least as far as Hollywood production is concerned - has gotten weaker than it used to be 30 years ago, acting is the one aspect that has not declined since then; in fact, Id almost say there has never been quite as much great acting talent around as there is currently. It strikes me as kind of disingenious to base this argument on people like those James Franco, Seth Rogan and Chris Hemsworth whom Ive personally never even heard of (the "Twilight git" being probably this Pattinson guy well Ive heard of him; he did more or less okay in Cosmopolis) and who hardly constitute todays cream of the crop as it were. On the other hand, we DO have the vast and versatile talents of people like Day-Lewis, P.S.Hoffman, Sean Penn, Michael Shannon, Javier Bardem, Gary Oldman etc around and in their prime. Guys who seem to be able to do just about anything. Also, of the old-timers you listed, Mitchum, Cassavetes & Ryan in particular werent exactly the "rangiest" of performers.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
franzkabuki — 13 years ago(March 23, 2013 07:10 AM)
Interesting, at least as far as the looks are concerned, I thought Penn only started to appear tolerable (ie not like such an arrogant, obnoxious prick) when he was nearing 40. Hardly seen a bad performance from him, even though hes given several fairly unremarkable ones lately. And Oldman has really always had this taste for ham, something hes sometimes capable of reigning in though; incidentally, in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy hes at his most quiet, understated & low-key.
As for the appreciation for the acting of decades past in general, I think too many young viewers are simply unable to see merit in more classically stylized acting, obsessed with this supposed naturalism or realism as todays cinema is when it comes to performances (as well as pretty much everything else). Even yours truly had to on this stuff for quite a while in order to adapt to the styles and vibes of classic Hollywood where people often speak in the way no one does, or ever did, irl.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan