Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2005 15:09:04 GMT -5
Giamatti was great in "American Splendor" -- and who can forget him as Pig Vomit Rushton in "Private Parts." He has been one of the very best character actors for the last eight years. He should have been nominated for both "American Splendor" and "Sideways" but he doesn't have "the look." Plus those movies involved characters whom most American audiences wouldn't find appealing. Too real if you know what I mean. Cool thing about Giamatti is that he has not whined about not getting nominated. He understands the deal and the order of things and he simply gets satisfaction from his work. I wish more actors were like him instead of the whores who sell themselves during Oscar season. Damn the sith! A great premise ruined by a horrible script, plot holes galore, no attention to the detail of the original trilogy, crappy acting (and I used to LOVE Natalie Portman... looks alone, of course, but she is a DECENT actress)... I could rant for hours. Giamatti is a great actor, and his "look" hurts him... yet another problem with freakin' Hollywood. Best thing is, he's a really nice guy too. Sort of quiet, insecure, but its real endearing. You meet him and he reminds you of an old friend or something. Always at the big independent film gatherings. As for Sam Jackson, he's an interesting character. Dennis Miller once made a great quote that he'd basically do anything (endorse any prodcut) if he was paid enough. Jackson kind of chooses his roles like that. Pay him and he'll do his whole Jules Winfield thing. But at the same time, he always does a few good movies every couple of years that show off his talent. "Red Violin" comes to mind. I forgot to mention something earlier, MCI. If you need further proof that home entertainment is going to take over box office film viewing, consider this: opening weekend sales of Halo 2 for X-Box outgrossed that of the then Hollywood record (is it still after Sith?) Spider Man. And I'm guessing the Halo 2 production/marketing budget was a miniscule fraction of Spider Man's.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 13, 2005 15:11:10 GMT -5
Jackson is a talented actor. He is just overexposed and is way too willing to take every last role ever offered which means he ends up making ten films per year. If you want to see his talent I would suggest you check out the one or two good independent films he appears in every few years. But for the most part you can stay away from his major Hollywood production roles because in those he is simply cashing a check. Seriously when doing the major studio flicks all he cares about is the location so he can figure out where to golf during his days off the set. Juice...that was a good one. Deep Blue Sea -- a shark ate me. A... As for Revenge of the Sith, that movie was awesome. 99% of the criticism is there because it is the hip thing to do. Best movie of the year in terms of pure enjoyment (with Sin City right behind). Critics tried to make it into something it was never supposed to be.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jun 13, 2005 15:14:35 GMT -5
Can't believe I forgot Giamatti- surely in the top talented short list.
Theatres will go extinct, mark my words. People used to think the drive in wasn't going anywhere either. They are struggling big time and only so many people will pay $7 for popcorn- which is the only place the theatres make money. With the advent of cheaper and cheaper and bigger and bigger and better and better TVs..... its forgone at this point. Theatres as we known them, as a mass business will start disappearing in 5 to 10 years and will be novelties in 15 or 20. Movie studios are already planning on this. The only business I would get out of faster than movie theatres is conventional DVD renting places like Blockbuster. It will all be on demand quite soon, no need to go to and from stores.
Theatres are dinosaurs, a middle man whose time has long gone through improvements in technology. Given the choice of a 40 foot screen I have to drive to and only starts when scheduled in an uncomfortable seat and with extremely over-priced refreshments- over my 50 inch and couch and the film at my disposal? Sorry, the extra screen isn’t' worth it to me anymore. And theatre receipts show I am not the only one waiting for films to come out on DVD and then buying them and owning them forever for the price of seeing it once in a theatre.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2005 15:15:53 GMT -5
Oh c'mon SF... most enjoyable of the year?! With acting like that? With a script like that? Its not that its fashionable, its that its TRUE! I did enjoy myself as it was explosions and outer-space and such, but the script, the plot holes, Hayden Christensen, offering details that conflict with the original trilogy... that's what ruins it for me, and I consider myself a much bigger Star Wars fan than critic.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 13, 2005 15:18:10 GMT -5
I disagree. It's up there in quality with the other three.
It's all about expectations. The truth of the matter is that the characters are not what everyone had in mind. Everyone already had a perception of what should be, and there is no way to beat that.
It's not perfect, there are flaws. There are flaws in the first 3 as well, but everyone is willing to overlook them. What astounded me is what critics picked on in these movies. A common criticism was: "We never see why he turns evil." What? Were you not watching? It's apparent. Sure, you may disagree with the character's reasoning, but it isn't YOUR story.
Note that Halo 2 sells for 5x the average movie ticket (so in terms of units, it's not comparable), and that video games have considerably more replay value than even DVD movies, let alone a 1-time movie ticket even at 5 times the cost.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jun 13, 2005 15:26:37 GMT -5
I liked SIth, but agree the dialogue and Christenson and Portman among other were atrocious. But Christenson (like Portman) is not a bad actor. See him in Shattered Glass. The word on Lucas is that nobody is a worse acting director, and his atrocious dialogue makes it worse.
But I enjoyed the film, in fact I think it the dialogue were all of the sudden to become decent it would have been more jarring than what it was.
And you are right, Jackson was pretty good in Red Violin. Good movie.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 13, 2005 15:28:30 GMT -5
Oh c'mon SF... most enjoyable of the year?! With acting like that? With a script like that? Its not that its fashionable, its that its TRUE! I did enjoy myself as it was explosions and outer-space and such, but the script, the plot holes, Hayden Christensen, offering details that conflict with the original trilogy... that's what ruins it for me, and I consider myself a much bigger Star Wars fan than critic. While I abhorred the lines in the first two movies (the love scene in Clones, the whole first movie), I can't remember a single line I cringed at in Sith. It wasn't necessarily a huge strength of the movie, but I thought that there were a few good (memorable) lines and overal acceptable dialogue. Christiansen was spotty in Clones, but I chalk it up to the character. Which people didn't seem to realize was supposed to whiny and unlikeable -- that's how Lucas views teenagers, especially those who think they are smarter than everyone else. In Sith he was much better. Again, no cringing. Decent glowering. Nothing to write home about, but nothing to ruin my enjoyment, either. Portman had little to do in the movie. No comment. McGregor was fantastic -- if only because he COMPLETELY pulled off the "You were the Chosen One" speech, which is the key to the movie. It would've been an easy speech to blow -- being too whiny -- but instead it comes across with the right amount of "resigned regret." That scene (and Revenge of the Sith) completely recasts the other three movies for me. People came in to the first three wanting to see the Vader they thought they knew -- PURE EVIL. Instead, Vader is more or less a frustrated failure. He's lost all he cared about and he never even amounted to much as a Sith -- wasn't he supposed to be master by now? He's an enormously tragic figure, and rewatching the quick fight between him and former big brother/ father/ best friend Obi-wan in Episode IV is completely recast in a new light. That was a tangent, but it highlights a big reason of why I liked the movie. Ian McDiarmid was also very good. Bit over the top but the Emperor is an exceedingly fun character. Who else? SL Jackson was fine. I think both he and Smits are too recognizable and people brought issues in with them. Anyway, take fastastic light saber duels; a kick ass Obi-Wan, bearable screenwriting and some decent acting, and I'm good. What plot holes are you talking about?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jun 13, 2005 15:30:21 GMT -5
How about Vader's "Nooooooooooooo!!!!" as one of the most unintentionally funny lines of all time?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2005 15:35:26 GMT -5
Oh I agree with you on the expectations thing, SF. And I agree that the CRITICS criticisms of the film was off-base in many instances. But from a purely cinematic standpoint, I thought the film left a lot to be desired. My little sister made the best point: there were WAY too many points in Episode III where we were laughing under our breaths when we weren't supposed to. Most notably, Darth Vader's "Streetcar Named Desire"/"Wrath of Kahn" moment at the end. The characters were cardboard, you didn't feel anything for them like you did the characters of the original trilogy, the dialogue was worse than "Matrix: Revolutions," and once again the special effects were over the top (that's just my personal preference - compare all the amazing on-location shoots in the original three to all the blue/green screen crap in the new three... they just don't LOOK as good).
But I will say this, the spaceship battles were pretty nasty (just a notch below the battle royale in space at the end of Jedi... of course Jedi had those damn Muppets... er... Ewoks)*
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 13, 2005 15:35:24 GMT -5
How about Vader's "Nooooooooooooo!!!!" as one of the most unintentionally funny lines of all time? Ok, you got me. One line. ;D But I will honestly say it wasn't nearly as bad the second time. Same with the Emperor's "Goooooood."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2005 15:37:52 GMT -5
It was a LOT more than one line. Any dialogue with Christensen was unintentionally funny. I've never, EVER seen anyone worse at expressing any kind of angered emotion. He was so horrible. That coupled with the disgustingly bad script and you're in for a doozy. When I saw it, a good part of the theatre were laughing in LOTS of parts they weren't supposed to - and other people have told me they experienced the same thing.
I look at it this way - in the originally three, our main characters talked like people did in America when the film was made. In these three, it was this forced, fake, Madonna-like English crap that just doesn't sit well.
Hey Lucas said it himself - these three were made as kids movies, whereas the original three were the creation of a young maverick filmmaker bent on telling a space version of an old Kurosawa gem. Maybe I just expected more out of him and this franchise I grew up with... but I expected them to be GOOD. In all, I think you have to say Episodes I-III were a disappointment (although not to Lucas' pocketbook).
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jun 13, 2005 15:39:57 GMT -5
And I could rant in its favor and go after you on this one but I'll agree to drop the discussion altogether. We'll agree to disagree.
Home entertainment has already taken over box office. You have TV, Tivo, video games, DVDs, CDs, internet, etc. That's a one sided battle.
As for the sale of the X-Box game lets consider this:
1)one game cost a whole lot more than one ticket 2)when you buy the game you can play it repeatedly; the value of a ticket for a film ends after one showing 3)Right now (outside of buying on the black market) you can only get these games one way. You can't download them. You can't skip their first run and buy them on DVDs a few months later like you can if you choose to not see a movie at the theaters. And I'm sure much more people sneak in (or through friends at the theaters get in for free) to catch a flick than steal an X-Box game. Then iinclude the fact that illegal copies of movies worldwide is a far greater problem than illegal copies of games and you have another reason why the movie industry suffers from the hands of external forces than the game industry does.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 13, 2005 15:44:26 GMT -5
Yeah, Vader's Khaaaaan! moment was pretty bad. I'm blacking it out. Otherwise, I was just trying to be real open-minded.
I know a lot of people, for example, giggled at the "hold me" line by Portman. It's a bit cheesy, as is that whole dialogue, but honestly, it isn't unrealistic. You end up saying a lot of cheesy crap to women when you're alone. And it wasn't just awful like Clones.
Regarding cardboard characters, I thought Anakin was decently fleshed out, but I can see your point a bit. I think in the trilogy as a whole there was just too much plot.
Also, the characters were realistic to Lucas' vision but unlikeable relative to say, Han Solo. They were supposed to be quiet dignified Jedis, or formal, careful with words politicians. Not exactly the "scoundrels" and everyday men of Star Wars. So I'm not sure that the dialogue was just awful -- but it and the characters were hindered by the characterizations themselves.
I agree with you on effects. They were well done, but on location and models are still better in ways.
I get I just got past all that and then really liked it for the pluses:
1) The story itself is fantastic. 2) It reframes the first three movies completely. 3) The lightsaber duels were amazing. Just fun. 4) Visuals were very good. 5) Kick-ass Obi-Wan 6) Definite "ooh" scenes. Final lightsaber battle; fight in the Senate; Anakin slaughtering the innocents/Order 66 montage
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jun 13, 2005 15:48:57 GMT -5
Can't believe I forgot Giamatti- surely in the top talented short list. Theatres will go extinct, mark my words. People used to think the drive in wasn't going anywhere either. They are struggling big time and only so many people will pay $7 for popcorn- which is the only place the theatres make money. With the advent of cheaper and cheaper and bigger and bigger and better and better TVs..... its forgone at this point. Theatres as we known them, as a mass business will start disappearing in 5 to 10 years and will be novelties in 15 or 20. Movie studios are already planning on this. The only business I would get out of faster than movie theatres is conventional DVD renting places like Blockbuster. It will all be on demand quite soon, no need to go to and from stores. Theatres are dinosaurs, a middle man whose time has long gone through improvements in technology. Given the choice of a 40 foot screen I have to drive to and only starts when scheduled in an uncomfortable seat and with extremely over-priced refreshments- over my 50 inch and couch and the film at my disposal? Sorry, the extra screen isn’t' worth it to me anymore. And theatre receipts show I am not the only one waiting for films to come out on DVD and then buying them and owning them forever for the price of seeing it once in a theatre. Movie rental stores were rumored to be on the way out back in the early 90s. They still exist though of course they're no longer as strong a presence. So its highly unlikley that theaters will be novelties in 20 years. I read my share of business reports on this and no one thinks that will happen in such a quick fashion. They are instead predicting that the theaters will have to reinvent themselves again, much more than they did 12 years ago when they went to stadium seating. We are still animals who like being in the company of others. If I have a chance of seeing a Star Wars flick first with 500 other people in a theater where we can all clap and cheer together at certain moments (which makes the film more enjoyable) or seeing it with a couple of buddies in my basement, I'm going with option A. That may not how I feel for all films but ome movies are simply events that are best absored as an experience with a crowd.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,420
|
Post by the_way on Jun 13, 2005 15:51:33 GMT -5
Speaking of acting nightmares, why is everyone afraid to call out Chris Rock for being overrated as an entertainer? Stand up Rock is good--anything else with him is AWFUL. -- I've been saying this for years. He's has a great comic mind. He's smart. He knows how to write intelligent and entertaining material. He's great as a standup comedian. But he sucks as an actor. He's horrible even for a comedian when it comes to acting. I like to joke that when you watch a Chris Rock motion picture you're seeing two films because Chris is doing one movie while all the other actors are doing another. His performances are so bad it jars you from simply being caught up with the story and makes you all too aware that this guy isn't on the same page with the other performers on the screen. He needs to stop. Yesterday. Chris Rock. I love Chris Rock. One of the best comedian's out there. His show on HBO was really good too. But you guys are oh soooooo right about his movie career. But to be real, Chris will admit it himself. You can see it in his face. You can't blame a man for trying, but he makes horrible movies. CB4 was probably his best movie, and that was cult, slapstick comedy. I think Crhis suffers from the Eddie Murphy syndrome. Eddie discovered him. Nobody can eclipse what Eddie did in the 80's, white or black, in terms of movie grosses as a comedian. I also think Chris sees a guy like Adam Sandler who is his friend, but he knows that, deep down, he is 100 times funnier than Sandler. However, his movies don't translate into success like Sandler's does for whatever reason. Chris is trying, which I can't blame him,but I believe his comedy and his former comedy-show on HBO is his true niche.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jun 13, 2005 15:55:32 GMT -5
"Movie rental stores were rumored to be on the way out back in the early 90s. They still exist though of course they're no longer as strong a presence. "
Right, give it another 5 years and see how they look. They are hurting too. Blockbuster getting rid of late fees was one of the first big death throes. Those were huge bread and butter revenue generators- it was a desperate move to kill them off. And now they are going Netflix on us? Why adopt the radically different business plan of your chief enemies? The writing is on the wall. Because the bricks and mortar stores are doomed. I can't believe ANYONE still goes to a blockbuster. I am surprised it is taking the cable and satellite companies so long to upgrade their on demand capabilities. But the wheels are in motion and video stores, in retail actual real estate, are gone soon. Theatres will take longer.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jun 13, 2005 16:02:22 GMT -5
I will not allow myself to be dragged into this Sith discussion.
I will not allow myself to be dragged into this Sith discussion.
I will not allow myself to be dragged into this Sith discussion.
I will not allow myself to be dragged into this Sith discussion.
I will not allow myself to be dragged into this Sith discussion.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jun 13, 2005 16:06:44 GMT -5
"Movie rental stores were rumored to be on the way out back in the early 90s. They still exist though of course they're no longer as strong a presence. " Right, give it another 5 years and see how they look. They are hurting too. Blockbuster getting rid of late fees was one of the first big death throes. The point is it didn't happen nearly as soon as some were predicting. I'm thinking the same will happen with theaters too, they'll stick around a lot longer than you think.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 13, 2005 16:14:45 GMT -5
The rental/theater analogy doesn't work.
Going to Blockbuster/Netflix is a war of conveniences in which both will be wiped out by true on-demand when cable/internet bandwidth and providers get up to speed. The only difference between Blockbuster and Flix is that Blockbuster allows for flexibility and Netflix convenience on small levels and a larger selection for netflix.
For some segment of the population, going to the movie is an entirely different entertainment option than seeing one at home. I can buy a six pack for much cheaper, but I still go out to bars. There will be a decline, but they won't disappear.
At least until everyone has a 90 ft screen or movies go hologram.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2005 16:22:03 GMT -5
I heard Lucas has both of those in his house...
|
|