http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253474/
When The Pianist first came out I was about 15, so needless to say I really wasn't interested in a WWII movie without tanks and flamethrowers. If I had watched it at that time, I would probably have thought it sucked and called it the most overrated movie of the year. Now, 8 years later, I can see why it won 3 Oscars. The story is heartbreaking. Adrien Brody is amazing. He look exactly like what I would expect an emaciated Jewish man running from the Nazis to look like, and apparently he lost 20 pounds for the role. That is just ridiculous; he can't weigh more than 160lbs to start! His unusual acting style is perfect for the solo role of the film. Who would of thought someone could make 30 mins of rummaging in debris entertaining. Roman Polanski may have a questionable personal life, but he knows how to direct a flick. The cinematography is also beautiful. It starts out so warm, but as the Germans begin to invade and wrangle everyone it becomes more dirty and bleak. Definitely a top watch!
9/10
Showing posts with label Drama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Drama. Show all posts
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
5) 6.6.10 Malcolm X
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104797/
One of the problems with making a bio flick is that anybody worth making a bio flick about has probably live a pretty crazy life, and people want to see that life. But much like film adaptation of a book you have two choices leave alot out and piss off the core fan base or make a long ass movie. The problem with long movies is that if you faulter in anyway to keep your audiance enguaged witht he film you have a 3 hour lame fest on your hands which leads to bad review and comparisons to Kevin Cosner's The Postman. You want to make the next Deerhunter not a movie about a fucking mail man. Though people will gladly watch a movie about a mail man fucking, its a really fine line.
One of the problems with making a bio flick is that anybody worth making a bio flick about has probably live a pretty crazy life, and people want to see that life. But much like film adaptation of a book you have two choices leave alot out and piss off the core fan base or make a long ass movie. The problem with long movies is that if you faulter in anyway to keep your audiance enguaged witht he film you have a 3 hour lame fest on your hands which leads to bad review and comparisons to Kevin Cosner's The Postman. You want to make the next Deerhunter not a movie about a fucking mail man. Though people will gladly watch a movie about a mail man fucking, its a really fine line.
Alternate ending to The Postman.
This is a very difficult task but Spike Lee pulled it off. I have only seen a few Spike Lee movies but I have become a big fan, his acting sucks but he knows how to tell a story. Malcolm X tells the story of, you geussed it, Malcolm X. Denzel Washington plays X and like almost everything Denzel plays he starts out charming moves to angrey as fuck and ends up less angrey and more enlightened. I can't comment on the accuracy of the plot but if you have a spare 3 hours and 15 minutes its a pretty solid watch.
8/10
Friday, September 3, 2010
3 ) 6.5.10 The Constant Gardener
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387131/
About 5 years ago it was nominated for a shit load of awards and was praised pretty consistantly for its direction, acting and editing. But for me it was just ok. I'm not saying it was a bad flick I'm just saying that it didn't strike me as perticularly special. The editing is the same non-linear style used constantly by Tarentino but for me I think this story would have benefited form a traditional style of stroy telling. I just didn't care enough about the characters to bounce around form point to point. Im a big fan of Rachel Weisze but I didn't thingk this was Rachel Weisz's best work (still better than Lovely Bones) and honestly she kind of annoyed me. I will say that it had amazing cinematorgraphy, that strange mix of beauty and filth that not many films can do well. Overall I was kind of let down, maybe its because I waited 5 years to see it but I expected more.
5/10
About 5 years ago it was nominated for a shit load of awards and was praised pretty consistantly for its direction, acting and editing. But for me it was just ok. I'm not saying it was a bad flick I'm just saying that it didn't strike me as perticularly special. The editing is the same non-linear style used constantly by Tarentino but for me I think this story would have benefited form a traditional style of stroy telling. I just didn't care enough about the characters to bounce around form point to point. Im a big fan of Rachel Weisze but I didn't thingk this was Rachel Weisz's best work (still better than Lovely Bones) and honestly she kind of annoyed me. I will say that it had amazing cinematorgraphy, that strange mix of beauty and filth that not many films can do well. Overall I was kind of let down, maybe its because I waited 5 years to see it but I expected more.
5/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)