[Windswept]

The trailer for "A Good Year", with Russell Crowe.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/good_year/trailers.php

After watching the trailer, I thought this movie looked better than I expected.

(Though, to be honest, I wasn't expecting much. )

And yeah, okay, I guess it's pretty much a chick flick.

[Dorian Gray]

Finally watched Little Miss Sunshine a couple of days ago; unfortunately I did so in a dodgy MK2 cinema in Paris that was guilty of the seventh deadly sin of projection (though I suppose the print must have been very old). Don't read the following if you don't want to know a few titbits about the film.

I had been looking forward to Little Miss Sunshine for ages. The Apple trailer was slick and funny, so I had great expectations of irony and indie edginess. Unfortunately the film did not live up to these expectations. There were several good moments ("I'm madly in love with you, and it's not because of your brains or your personality") but ultimately it was a pretty straight and very conservative Hollywood affair (dysfunctional family miraculously united in the face of adversary, implausible story-line involving for example someone openly (and presumably legally) buying porn mags in a shop, followed by a policeman benevolently refraining from "busting" the person he thinks is the owner of said porn).

In general, the film promised great wit and edginess while conspicuously failing to deliver. At several points the directors flirt timidly with paedophilia while never actually having the courage to grab the bull by the horns. One thing that particularly irritated me was the shallowness of the literary references liberally sprinkled over the dialogue. Uncle Frank is supposedly the top Proust scholar in the US, while 15-year-old Dwayne (played by 23-year-old Paul Dano) is obsessed with Nietzsche (yet wants to become a test pilot: another implausible twist). So when they morphed into a tag-team desperate to withdraw 7-year-old Olive from a grotesque beauty pageant for young children, I was waiting with some anticipation for their philosophical objections to parading little children around in makeup. When Dwayne and Uncle Frank finally got talking about this (on a high pier for potential suicide drama) Dwayne's best argument was "fuck this shit" while Uncle Frank basically grinned dumbly and nodded agreement. MASSIVE disappointment.

Grandpa's death prompted a saccharine group-hug and the subsequent idiocy over the body was funny for about a minute but the device is dragged out for the rest of the film and gets really tiresome. I would say the best part of the film is the beginning before the road trip actually starts. The characters are developed very quickly and the viewer gets to know the family and how it works (or doesn't) in a matter of minutes, which is quite an achievement.

It was still a feel-good comedy I suppose, but it could have been so much more and really something worthy of the great praise the film has received from many quarters.

One other thing: does anyone know why cinematographers use Panavision equipment these days? I hate the look of Panavision Primos, particularly the nisen-bokeh, with "cat's eye effect" for added ugliness. The sharpness and contrast of the Panavision lenses are also visibly lacking when compared to Zeiss Master Primes, particularly in wide-angle scenes shot with a wide aperture. I go to the cinema to enjoy the look and feel of a film and it irks me when these details are given inadequate respect by the DP or cinema projectionist.

[tomoe]

So Inside Man is not in the cinema right now, but was recently released on DVD. Anyway, if you're looking for a good heist movie set in New York, check it out. It's a lot of fun. Good story, good characters. I'm personally not a fan of either Denzel or Jodie, but they fit the bill well in this flick.

[BlueRabbit]

I just got back from seeing Children of Men. It was a good movie, especially the cinematography. It's not quite as depressing as most of the reviews have made it out to be, although the body count is one of the highest I've seen in a while. A couple cool little things I noticed:

• For the last half of the movie, Theo is wearing an old, worn-out London 2012 Olympics sweatshirt. I found this a pretty funny way to set the movie far in the future.
• In the scene where Theo is being questioned in the room covered with newspaper (most of the headlines apocalyptic), at the very bottom of the screen there's an article titled "The iPod Generation", along with a picture of a 4G iPod.
• When Jasper's alarm goes off, there's a split-second shot of his computer. As far as I could tell, it was a TAM! By the time of the movie, it would be thirty years old.

[scratt]

I read that Children of Men is a bit like playing Gears of War...

What are people's view of this comment? Are the combat scenes really shot in a way that is reminiscent of an FPS?

[murbot]

Grindhouse

Sweet.

[spikeh]

Originally Posted by scratt I read that Children of Men is a bit like playing Gears of War... What are people's view of this comment? Are the combat scenes really shot in a way that is reminiscent of an FPS?

Not really. There's not all that much action in it, truth be told - I'm sure Clive Owen did at some point fire a gun, but I have a real hard time recalling it. The depth and texture of the troubled world it depicts are gorgeous, though. Well worth a watch.

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray In general, the film promised great wit and edginess while conspicuously failing to deliver.

I agree wholeheartedly. I didn't see what all the fuss was about at all - and the dancing at the end, although a little different, reminded me so much of Napoleon Dynamite that I cringed and switched off. They all gave good performances, but the film was just too twee and formulaic for my taste. It was a very, very smooth feel-good flick, but nothing more.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by murbot Grindhouse Sweet.

Oh man, no kidding! I've been waiting on this since last summer!

It'll be a hoot. Just the idea alone - two separate, self-contained full-length cheeseball horror/slasher/gore movies divided by fake trailers for other films of that genre - is enough to spark my interest. But when you toss in the people involved, both behind and in front of the camera, that just puts it over the top.

Tarantino, Rodriguez, Kurt Russell, Michael Biehn, Michael Parks, Rose McGowan, Rosario Dawson, Danny Trejo, Tom Savini, etc. No telling who else will pop up in cameos and little "inside jokes".

I absolutely love "From Dusk 'Til Dawn", "Pulp Fiction", "Sin City", "Kill Bill" and the El Mariachi trilogy...so I wouldn't miss this movie for anything.

I'll be there opening night, like the dork that I am!

[Windswept]

Just saw the 3D version of Beowulf.

Just *amazing* effects. Whoa!

The story itself was okay, but the effects were worth seeing for themselves.

Not to mention the fact that Angelina Jolie is naked and painted in gold paint. Or at least she 'looks' like she's naked and painted in gold paint.

That was probably all special effects too.

[thegeriatric]

Looks like a must see. I meant the special effects, not Angelina Jolie of course.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by thegeriatric Looks like a must see. I meant the special effects, not Angelina Jolie of course.

Of course.

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by Windswept Just saw the 3D version of Beowulf. [...] That was probably all special effects too.

It is beyond special effects. As I understand it, the movie actually will be in the animated category for film award classification.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Chinney It is beyond special effects. As I understand it, the movie actually will be in the animated category for film award classification.

Well, it is an animated movie. It uses the same "performance capture" photo-realistic animation as Zemekis's previous project, The Polar Express.

I don't like it.

[Chinney]

So that's not Angelina that we are seeing, just an 'artist's (or computer's) rendition'.

[Windswept]

Well, the people are all real actors at all times when they are conversing and doing 'real-people' type stuff.

When the characters are being ripped to shreds by monsters, I think it's safe to say that that part of the action is being produced by 'animated effects'.

But it's the 3D effects that I was saying are so amazing. I enjoyed those a lot. And they weren't overdone, imo. For example, a sword comes out of the screen and almost literally taps you on the nose.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by Chinney So that's not Angelina that we are seeing, just an 'artist's (or computer's) rendition'.

No, that *IS* Anglina Jolie - 99% of the time.

My estimation.

[Naderfan]

Man, I thought that movie was TERRIBLE. Although maybe I needed to see it in 3-D.

But yeah, it's all computer animation, based on the actors' movements (like what they did for Gollum in Lord of the Rings). I didn't like it at all.

[psmith2.0]

Naked CGI Angelina notwithstanding, I've not really had a serious hankering for "Beowulf". I am, however, seriously considering seeing "No Country for Old Men" tomorrow. It's the Coen Brothers and has Tommy Lee Jones. Pretty sure it doesn't get much better than that...



Also, a local theater is playing "A Christmas Story" and "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation" on the big screen (something I've been saying/suggesting for years now...half the fun of seeing flicks like these this time of year is enjoying them with others who are equally into them). I may do that as well.

[SKMDC]

For the record I hate Zemeckis, he always does something really trifling in a movie that manages to piss me off.
I can't really explain why I get so livid, maybe it's just the piling on of occurrences. Like in Back to the Future, at the end of the movie when the Bass player calls his cousin "Chuck" to tell him about this new sound, basically stripping Chuck Berry of his contributions to rock AND roll.

Then in the worst movie to ever win the Oscar for best picture, Forrest Gump is the one who catches the burglars breaking in to the Watergate Building, robbing another black man (night watch man Frank Wills) of an accomplishment.
What's his problem anyway?

Actually the reason Gump is bad is mostly because of the really bad fake hair and beards used which seem to be left over from Born on the 4th of July (the second worst fake hair movie) as well as the endless Run Forrest Run Sequence.....sheesh.

I usually go see his films but the last two using this Video Game Image Capture technique is just a little too manipulative, it's as if he's saying yes I like the actors but I want to control them completely, even though they are not black, I would like to rob them of their artistic abilities and accomplishments.

Sorry I got a Zemeckis problem.

The main reason I didn't see this new one (although I will most likely buy the DVD) is I don't go to movies with dragons in them, meaning I don't want to be in a room with a bunch of people who want to see dragon movies. I'm not sure how high the dragon component is in this movie, but the preview was enough to keep me away.

On a lighter note, we (as a whole family) went to see Enchanted today and if you have kids especially a daughter who is totally obsessed with the whole princess oeuvre, this movie (by Disney) somehow manages to take a piss at the whole Disney culture yet still pleasing my princess fixated daughter. (you can't walk in my house for tripping over crowns and tiaras) Then I saw Barry Sonnenfeld was behind it and he's a pretty smart movie maker so it makes sense. Susan Sarandon really rocks, Timothy Spall (Harry Potter's Pettigrew) is pretty good but Amy Adams (she played Ricky Bobby's Girlfriend in Talladega Nights and was nominated for Junebug last year.) steals the freakin show, she is soo great. I see she's going to be in Charlie Wilson's War, my most eagerly anticipated holiday movie.

Disney been on a hot streak lately mostly because Eisner is gone and Iger has open up the studio to new ideas instead keeping everything "in house". I see they are going to hook up with Tim Burton for a couple of movies, including a new version of Alice's Adventures Through the Looking Glass.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Naderfan Man, I thought that movie was TERRIBLE. Although maybe I needed to see it in 3-D. But yeah, it's all computer animation, based on the actors' movements (like what they did for Gollum in Lord of the Rings). I didn't like it at all.

Well, it really is more of a spectacle film, and if you're not seeing it in 3-D, you're not getting much of the spectacle.

[turtle]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 ... Also, a local theater is playing "A Christmas Story" and "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation" on the big screen (something I've been saying/suggesting for years now...half the fun of seeing flicks like these this time of year is enjoying them with others who are equally into them). I may do that as well.

My family and I watched Christmas Vacation last night! We really enjoyed it too. I'd consider watching it on the big screen.

[Chinney]

SKMDC - agreed on Forrest Gump, it was a long, pointless, boring schamozzle - it beggars belief, in retrospect, that it was even remotely considered for an Oscar.

Enchanted looks likely to be excellent. It has had great reviews. I have three kids, so they will definitely be going. Many kids into the 'princess' thing will also appreciate a parody of it. Kids are not stupid, and understand that there is silliness underlying fairy tales. That does not prevent them from honestly enjoying a fairy tale, but it also does not prevent them from laughing at a parody.

[psmith2.0]

Yeah, that's probably the reason "Shrek" (the first two, at least) did so well.

[SKMDC]

You know Shrek is a caricature of Michael Eisner, yeah? The first movie in particular takes quite the piss at Disney & Eisner, which is understandable as it was made by a disgruntled ex-Disney executive. (Jeffrey Katzenberg)
In Enchanted, there is a scene with an Ogre and I thought Disney might have a little comeback but alas, no.
Apparently all is well between Dreamworks & Disney now.

[psmith2.0]

No, I wasn't aware of that. If/when I see it again, I'll watch it through that particular prism and see what I can pick up on.



I saw the first one just this year, on video. And the only reason I saw it was because I'd actually gone to the theater to see the second one in '04 and laughed out loud in a few places (so I thought "maybe I should finally sit down and see the first one, if I enjoyed the second one that much").

Poor reviews, overhype (which always turns me off, and sets off my "uh-oh" alarms) and my own gut feelings of "partthreeitis" kept me from seeing this most recent one this past summer. Based on everything I've read about it, I think I made the right choice...

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by Naderfan Man, I thought that movie was TERRIBLE. Although maybe I needed to see it in 3-D.

Well, yeah. That's basically what I was saying. The story was marginal, but the 3D effects were amazing and a lot of fun. I enjoyed that aspect a lot. The 3D glasses they gave us were of good quality, and I saved mine in case anything else is released in 3D in the next few years.

(Apparently sometimes the glasses/visual aids are meant to be turned in and re-used after sanitizing. At least, that's what happened when my brother saw something in 3D at IMAX. Viewers were given reusable 3D helmets; but the lenses were all scratched up, which kind of defeats the purpose of a specialized 'visual' extravaganza.)

Originally Posted by SKMDC ...is bad is mostly because of the really bad fake hair and beards used which seem to be left over from Born on the 4th of July...

[psmith2.0]

Yeah, I'm always amazed that movies - while realistically depicting mid-air fights, spaceships flying around, outrageous stunts and action, etc. - seem to have such a tough time getting hair (wigs) and fake beards to look right.



One of the worst is "Episode II: Attack of the Clones". In most scenes, Ewan McGregor looks to be sporting a nice, full beard of his own. But in a few scenes (possibly reshoots or pickup scenes filmed later, after McGregor had shaved in real life?), he's sporting the worst fake beard I've ever seen! It's splotchy, uneven, looks "glued-on", etc. All that ILM CGI magic they can do, and they've got one of the main characters looking like an extra from a fourth-grade Christmas nativity play.



And pretty much any movie with John Travolta or Nicolas Cage is a two-hour showcase of shitty hairpieces/wigs. I've not seen either of those guys look normal or natural from the neck up in about 15 years.

[Windswept]

Saw The Other Boleyn Girl this weekend, starring Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johannsen.

I have to say that Scarlett's facial features aren't very pretty when in close proximity to Natalie's. Natalie's features are more delicate and more finely-sculptured than Scarlett's, don't you think?

Has anyone else seen this movie? I thought the guy who played young King Henry VIII (Eric Bana?) did a good job. I always like to see the clothes and castle/manor interiors in these period films.

I have to wonder, however, whether Anne Boleyn was at *all* the way she was portrayed in the movie - i.e., as a power-hungry social climber of the first order. I have to doubt it, but then, I really have absolutely no idea.

It's interesting, though, because as evil as she is, when she gets her 'just deserts', one feels sorry for her. Well, at least *I* did, anyway.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by Windswept I have to say that Scarlett's facial features aren't very pretty when in close proximity to Natalie's. Natalie's features are more delicate and more finely-sculptured than Scarlett's, don't you think?

Haven't seen the movie, but I had to comment on this bit! I think Natalie Portman has 'gone off' in the past couple of years. Or perhaps it was just that sex scene in the short that she did that has tainted her for me. Either way I think that she may have classic beauty, but she's a bit pointy and shrew like for my taste.. Scarlett on the other hand is absolutely a doll. I am very curious to see this movie (or at least a clip) to see if I can see what you mean.

[NosferaDrew]

Originally Posted by Windswept Has anyone else seen this movie? I thought the guy who played young King Henry VIII (Eric Bana?) did a good job. I always like to see the clothes and castle/manor interiors in these period films.

I saw it at work a few weeks ago (worked on the 5.1 audio for Digital Cinema) and I was very underwhelmed.

I thought Natalie Portman was very uneven - sometimes she was inhabiting the role, but often her acting made me cringe. Scarlett, Eric Bana and David Morrissey (Duke of Norfolk) were solid in their roles.

The woman who played Katherine of Aragon, Ana Torrent, was amazing. Must look for her in other films. She had only a few scenes, but she owned the frame when she was in it.

Basically, if you know the real story and understand the timeline of that part of history, you will likely be offended with the liberties taken in this film.

Other films that I've seen recently at work:
21 - decent flick worthy of a look, but you'll forget about it the next day.
CJ7 - aka Cheung Gong 7 hou. Stephen Chow's (Kung Fu Hustle, Shaolin Soccer) latest is more of a kids movie and while it isn't as fresh or inventive as Kung Fu Hustle (for me anyway) it is definitely worth seeing if you like his style and want some touching and fun entertainment for an hour and a half.