I should probably start off by saying that I loathed this film. Detested it! Despised it with every ounce of vitriolic h
-
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 -
offyerswod — 10 years ago(November 20, 2015 07:29 AM)
What the beep are you talking about ???
I thought the effects in this movie were great and kinda disturbing ( though the car explosions were kinda poor )
But there is NO way CGI of today is in anyway better than the practical effects of the 80's , 90's absolutely no chance ..cant you see that CGI looks comically bad yet or are you going to wait 30 years ??
I also think todays crop of actors are a most unlikeable, untalented bunch and the fact your saying the acting is better now ..depresses me, its bleaker than this movie.
That being said . I did not like the acting , screaming and shouting in "possession" i couldn't even understand some of the accents in this.but this is that arty european foreign style aimed at much cleverer people than myself. -
Gus-69 — 10 years ago(August 22, 2015 06:33 PM)
I wonder what's in the mind of a person who thinks a 1981 movie is "old as hell" and Adjani's performance is bad.
-
cookiela2001 — 12 years ago(June 09, 2013 06:53 PM)
This film seems to be inspired by the
Theatre of the Absurd
style, in which stories were presented enigmatically or nonsensicallyI guess in an attempt to reflect the chaos and randomness of life itself.
It is my LEAST favorite theatrical style. The artists don't have to take responsibility for anythingrather, it's all just served up as a cloaked mishmash for the audience toponder. If someone doesn't have anything coherent to saywhy don't they just shut the hell up, rather than make confusing movies? It's very very irritating.
The two leads in this are very good and commit %100, and the premise of a spouse having an obsessive affair with a monstrous, inhuman thing is kind of gripping. But this film seems to be enjoyed more in discussion than in the actual viewing experience.
AND I DON'T CARE ! ! ! (Though Adjani looks more naturally, yet rapturously, beautiful than ever in several shots.)
. -
fourballoons — 12 years ago(December 16, 2013 06:14 PM)
THIS. THIS. THIS!
Your post is EXACTLY what I am thinking right now (just finished watching it). The film had SO much potential, if it would have kept a serious tone throughout. Why the stupid music, poor attempts at "comic relief" (which really weren't funny or effective, just stupid and sabotaging to the rest of the film) and the silly/unbelievable crap stuffed into it for no good reason.
I WANTED to like this film (and I did like SOME of it). Isabelle played her role VERY well. But the husband and her lover? The FBI agents/cops/whatever they were near the end?? PURE TACKY beep