Coming soon...I have Netflix. I have blog. We have Netflog. We'll begin with the kinds of things you'd discuss around the Netflix watercooler specifically, range afield from there to talk about movies generally and see where that gets us.
Yeah, many movies lead you by the hand. And scripts have become very plot-by-numbers: Fade in, main character plays harmonica to the chagrin of his exasperated girlfriend, introduce alien expeditionary force, hero resists, is captured, on the verge of being gromulized, when he realizes the rare F-flat harmonica in his pocket plays just the note that makes the gromulanians explode. Kiss the girl.
I've read that "The Good Shepherd" is supposed to harken back to the golden 70s when the stories were told for adults and events seemed to unfold more naturally. A recent Netflix that had that looseness, though there's a fine line between looseness and the frustrating feeling of "oh, come on," was Ed Norton's "Down in The Valley."
Why do you say that? Because it had a hokey twist at the end that explained everything and, if guessed too early, rendered watching the next two hours tedious and borzz...?
I liked Paul Giamatti's performance, despite the fact that I think he was miscast. He didn't have the menace, or moral ambiguity, that I thought the role required. You really needed to fear that the inspector wouldn't do the right thing, that he might act merely out of self interest. You didn't feel like he was the kind of man who'd made those selfish, questionable choices throughout his career, the kind that would have pushed him up through the ranks. He is too nice.
Now that I think about it, the same Giamatti affability is at odds with his character in "Sideways" too. I love the movie and the character of Miles. But considering his actions objectively, you should dislike Miles. He steals from his mother, harrasses his ex-wife and goes along w/ Jack's deception. But he's Paul Giamatti, so hey, why not? But, I guess, Jack's worse and you've got to side with someone.
Went and saw Pan's Labyrinth yesterday in Austin at the fantastic Alamo Drafthouse (http://www.originalalamo.com/lamar/frames.asp).
The movie was great if you're into metaphors, fairytales and other gruesome media. It lives up to the hype in my book, but not in the way I thought it would. It's definitely good to see on the big screen, but HD would do. Once you've seen it we could discuss it.
Pan's Labyrinth. I just don't get the critical breathlessness. I guess I went in with unrealistic expectations. Someone on aint-it-cool-news.com mentioned that the ad campaign misrepresented the movie by emphasizing the fantasy material. And I suppose, if I'm honest with myself, I was disappointed that so little of the movie is set in cuckoo land.
Is it a good, solid, inventive movie? Yes. Is it a masterpiece, a best picture? I don't know. Maybe I should see it again.
Also, I've read a lot of praise for the cinematography, which makes me think that the projector at the Landmark Sunshine wasn't set properly; too dark.
5 comments:
Yeah, many movies lead you by the hand. And scripts have become very plot-by-numbers: Fade in, main character plays harmonica to the chagrin of his exasperated girlfriend, introduce alien expeditionary force, hero resists, is captured, on the verge of being gromulized, when he realizes the rare F-flat harmonica in his pocket plays just the note that makes the gromulanians explode. Kiss the girl.
I've read that "The Good Shepherd" is supposed to harken back to the golden 70s when the stories were told for adults and events seemed to unfold more naturally. A recent Netflix that had that looseness, though there's a fine line between looseness and the frustrating feeling of "oh, come on," was Ed Norton's "Down in The Valley."
I recently visited the UFO museum at Roswell. "Meta-creepy".
Speaking of Ed Norton, why didn't M. Night Shyamalan direct The Illusionist? He may as well have.
Why do you say that? Because it had a hokey twist at the end that explained everything and, if guessed too early, rendered watching the next two hours tedious and borzz...?
I liked Paul Giamatti's performance, despite the fact that I think he was miscast. He didn't have the menace, or moral ambiguity, that I thought the role required. You really needed to fear that the inspector wouldn't do the right thing, that he might act merely out of self interest. You didn't feel like he was the kind of man who'd made those selfish, questionable choices throughout his career, the kind that would have pushed him up through the ranks. He is too nice.
Now that I think about it, the same Giamatti affability is at odds with his character in "Sideways" too. I love the movie and the character of Miles. But considering his actions objectively, you should dislike Miles. He steals from his mother, harrasses his ex-wife and goes along w/ Jack's deception. But he's Paul Giamatti, so hey, why not? But, I guess, Jack's worse and you've got to side with someone.
Wm.
Went and saw Pan's Labyrinth yesterday in Austin at the fantastic Alamo Drafthouse (http://www.originalalamo.com/lamar/frames.asp).
The movie was great if you're into metaphors, fairytales and other gruesome media. It lives up to the hype in my book, but not in the way I thought it would. It's definitely good to see on the big screen, but HD would do. Once you've seen it we could discuss it.
Pan's Labyrinth. I just don't get the critical breathlessness. I guess I went in with unrealistic expectations. Someone on aint-it-cool-news.com mentioned that the ad campaign misrepresented the movie by emphasizing the fantasy material. And I suppose, if I'm honest with myself, I was disappointed that so little of the movie is set in cuckoo land.
Is it a good, solid, inventive movie? Yes. Is it a masterpiece, a best picture? I don't know. Maybe I should see it again.
Also, I've read a lot of praise for the cinematography, which makes me think that the projector at the Landmark Sunshine wasn't set properly; too dark.
http://www.landmarktheatres.com/Market/NewYork/NewYork_Frameset.htm
Post a Comment