Just watched the 'Black Dahlia' by De Palma and i was dissappointed. Not only did i expect the movie to be far better (such an interesting subject) but also being a De Palma fan i expected something better than this absurd film.
5/10
Printable View
Just watched the 'Black Dahlia' by De Palma and i was dissappointed. Not only did i expect the movie to be far better (such an interesting subject) but also being a De Palma fan i expected something better than this absurd film.
5/10
I saw that not long ago & agree it was pretty awful
It seems that tastes do differ. I just checked in imdb and there were many people who actually liked the film (but that happens every time, right?). But for me it was a waste of time. Today i was in the mood for a new movie (this doesn't happen often :lol: ) and i chose this one instead of 'Capote'. I believe i made the wrong choice :D.
Yes, what a movie, even the soundtrack (Glass) was special. I didn't seen the extras (yet) sounds good to sit back and see just what was entailed in the making of such a movie.
And Shackleton is becoming more and more attractive to me, I wonder if our library has a copy of it, since it is historic... or at our local video rental place.... I have definately made a point of wanting to see it (think hubby would agree it would be time well spent).
As for Winged Migration, no have not seen (never heard of it), so thanks for that pointer!
As for that Black Dahlia film, I saw it and did not enjoy it either. They took a real story and totally butchered it. Don't know if anyone even knows what the truth is (so many myths out there about this subject). Maybe a 2/10 rating...
We rented that Capote movie and I liked it somewhat. It was well done, the acting was good and all, but I found that it dragged on and on, and I really didn't care for the way that the writer identified with that killer.... I don't know, maybe it is just my tastes. For what it is worth, I'd give it about 6/10.
Kiz, good - glad these tips helped you. I think guys/men like the Shackelton film. My library is a real tiny one, and they have it - it is boxed with 3 disks. If you can take the time to watch them, all the actual surviving footage of the real expedition will entrall you, but first see the film and then dig deeper. The film will reel you in, beleive me. As you watch it remember I said - 'it may seem incredible and like it could not have happened this way, but it did'. To view and learn more about it you will find that actually the real (full story) was even more incredulous. The survival was definitely a miracle of sorts.
About "Capote" - I did like it a lot. Here we probably differ in opinion. You know after Capote's experiences, getting too wrapped up with the condemned prisoner, he never wrote another novel. This last novel and his involvement lead to a kind of downfall for him. Did you ever read "In Cold Blood"? I read it years ago and it is a fine novel although justifibly disturbing. I think having read it helped me understand better the film and Capote's views of the prisoners.
Kiz, I think one has to take the reviews online and read many to get a true sense of whether a film is really good, and then one can definitely disagree no matter how many people rave over it. It's all personal taste in the final analysis, don't you think? I often disagree with the Oscar choices, don't you?
By the way, I love movie soundtracks. I try to collect them. Luckily my library gets in a lot of CDs that are film soundtrack so I download them. Yes, the one by Glass for the penquin film was a fine score.
Well, I called in sick from work today so I dipped into my big stack of unwatched movies and decided to watch 'Infernal Affairs,' the movie of which 'The Departed' was remade. All I've heard since The Departed came out was that Infernal Affairs was better, I just sort of chalked this up to cinephile elitist banter, I mean come on, Jack Nicholson, Marty Scorsese, Martin Sheen, Mark Wahlberg, Leo DiCaprio. However, I admit I was wrong, Infernal Affairs is a better movie than The Departed though they are both excellent films.
The whole movie gives such a great feeling of urgency with wonderful directing, and editing, great pacing and acting led to not only a wonderful movie in an artistic sense but most importantly an extremely entertaining film as well. There was a lot of focus on the characters as opposed to the violence going on around them which was a great change from what I had expected, but it was pulled off wonderfully. The way the two main characters slowly become someone else one a cop into a gangster and the other gangster into a cop is fantastic.
I had never seen Tony Leung up until this point (well I did in 'Hero' but I didn't know it and have forgotten the film since then) but he has succesfully won me over. He is absolutely terrific.
I'll give this film a 9/10, fantastic film no matter which way you look at it.
The Devil's Backbone 8/10
Not quite the masterpiece that is Pan's Labyrinth but the structure and plot are very similar. Del Toro is one of the best modern directors and I can't wait for the last part of this trilogy.
Anna Karenina(1935)
starring Greta Garbo, Fredric March, Maureen O'Sullivan, Basil Rathbone, Gyles Isham directed by Clarence Brown
9/10
I wanted for so long time to watch this film...and I did it today!
The first Greta Garbo film I saw and loved it! The swedish actress plays outstanding: she's got charm and beauty-a real good actress! I really felt sorry for Anna while watched her part-she knew how to convey Tolstoy's character's feelings. Especially in the end ***SPOILERS*** when Anna kills herself. Her facial expression when she throws herself in front of the train is very suggestive and shows her talent as an actress.
Richard March was very good in Vronsky's part. But I also liked Basil Rathbone in Karenin's part. He didn't show like that bad and disgusting old husband I imagined when I read the book. He looked more appealing than Vronksy, even though some scenes between Greta Garbo and Fredric March(Vronsky) are pure chemistry!
Maureen O'Sullivan was very sweet in Kitty's role and was close to what I imagined while reading the book.
Gyles Isham was also very well chosen for Levin's part.
The single thing that I would reproach to the film would be the big parts from the book missing. And I am talking about Levin's interior fights, a big part Levin's courtship to Kitty(I would have loved to see the part in which he makes her that original proposal of marriage), Levin's brothers Koznyshev and Nikolai, the moment in which Koznyshev wants to propose Varenka but fails, etc. There are many things which miss from the movie, but it is compliant, because the huge Tolstoy book couldn't have been put in a 95 minutes film. Maybe a longer film? Could the 1935 cinema techinique permit a longer one? I think it would have been better...
But I'd like to point that I liked very enormously the end; Iashvin and Vronksy talk about Anna and Vronsky says that he would never forgive himself. Iashvin replies that Anna forgot and forgave. And still Yashvin says:"Who knows?'', while Vronksy looks at Anna's photograph, which appears in full screen, while a melancholy melody is played and the screen slowly turnes dark...
Good review downing! I quite enjoyed it. Only thing - I think you need to edit and change the actor's name to [Fredric] March(Vronsky) in the bold. You mention him correctly at the end of the paragraph. Otherwise you review is great and makes me want to see Garbo's performance. I like Fredric March films, by the way. He was a very good actor.
Hamlet ~ Zeffirelli's version ~
Starring Mel Gibson, Glen Close, Alan Bates, Helena Bonham-Carter, Ian Holm, Paul Scofield
This version is set in medieval-era Denmark and was nominated for Art Direction and Costume Design. I like this version and the performances are really noteworthy. However, after viewing several other full-length versions, I am noticing many changes in script from the original Shakespeare text. For one thing, many of the lines are changed around and in a different sequence. It is odd to see this when I nearly have the full-length text/versions memorized by now, having viewed them so many times. This version is much more abreviated and condensed, more so than I originally thought. It is a noteworthy film if you think of it as a separate entity - a film in it's self. But it is a far cry from the complete play, if you are more of a purest about adaptations, as I tend to be especially concerning Shakespeare's "Hamlet". Also, I wish that some of the film with great moments was shown with more personal closeups of the actors delivering their lines. I would have like those moments to be more centered. A few parts get a little confusing with too much going on around the actors, too many distractions. I like very much some of the scenes, but felt the "To be or not to be" scene in the tomb, though mostly well done, was a little lacking in focus at times.
I recall seeing this film years ago with my teenage son who loved it, which delighted me. It seems this could be appreciated by youth or those who have not the patience for the full 4 hour play/films. First time I saw this version I was amazed with all of the fine acting and I loved this film's intensity and drama. Now that I have seen full-length versions I miss parts that were cut to make this version fit into a commercial theater timeslot. But this film does work well as a film standing alone from the play.
I especially like Alan Bates as the corrupt uncle/king. Mel Gibson gives a fine performance; so does Glen Close as his mother - in reality they were about the same age when shooting this film, but she is very believable as Hamlet's mother. Helena Bonham-Carter is quite young here and gives a fine performance as Ophelia. Strange though, how the script was so obviously changed around, especially when it came to interaction between Hamlet and Ophelia. That is when I first noticed that the director took this liberty of rearranging the script. Also, some key sections were completely left out, like in the bedroom scene between Hamlet and his mother. This rather annoys me now. If you have seen no other version, this will greatly delight you. Mel Gibson plays the role a bit madder, than I think Kenneth Branagh plays it, in his full-length version. I prefer the full-length film and many things about it, but this film is interesting in that it is set in earlier times so the settings are cruder, more rustic, and quite interesting.
'History Boys' - adapted from the play by Alan Bennett. Thoroughly engrossing and compulsory viewing for everyone. A friend of Alan Bennett is a friend of mine. What is it about him that is so endearing? Any ideas?
Freedom Writers ~ starring Hilary Swank and Patrick Dempsey
10/10
This is one fantastic movie! It's the story of a naive new teacher who comes to a school that used to teach students with a four point grade average but now is populated by students don't think school is of any use because it doesn't teach how to survive the streets. Fights erupt between gangs and people. Young adults are shot by rival gangs. Through time, Swank(the teacher) modifies her methods and really gets through to the kids by telling them "gangster" stories like Romeo and Juliet and showing racial problems through books like Anne Frank's diary. Also, the class got so excited about the holocaust (that sounds odd) that they held fundraisers to raise money to bring the woman who had sheltered Anne Frank to visit.
Through all the field trips and dinners and lessons learned, the students regain their self-esteem and learn that you don't need gangs to survive. But as Swank made progress with the students, the faculty was against her methods and did much to try to ensure that she wouldn't outshine their own efforts, which were poor because they didn't think the kids were worth it. Of course, everything ended happily.