| Author |
Message |
|
| billyweeds |
 Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:38 am |
 |
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
| Plugging my own work again: The play I'm doing now uses Fellini soundtrack music, some of it from 8-1/2, which is appropriate since my character is going through a fantasy about his life much like Mastroianni in 8-1/2. |
|
|
| Back to top |
  
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
billyweeds wrote: Plugging my own work again: The play I'm doing now uses Fellini soundtrack music, some of it from 8-1/2, which is appropriate since my character is going through a fantasy about his life much like Mastroianni in 8-1/2.
When I read a synopsis of the play, Mastroianni in 8 1/2 came to mind. It also has bits and pieces of statements from various characters which seems a bit similar to the play you are in. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| inlareviewer |
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 9:18 pm |
|
|
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 1949
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ghulam |
| Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:02 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 4742
Location: Upstate NY
|
| Both Julie and Julia are interesting characters and have interesting life stories, though not hugely interesting. Meryl Streep and Amy Adams are very good. One thing I noticed was that 90% of the audience were women. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 6:52 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
Ghulam wrote: Both Julie and Julia are interesting characters and have interesting life stories, though not hugely interesting. Meryl Streep and Amy Adams are very good. One thing I noticed was that 90% of the audience were women.
Julie and Julia and The Time Traveler's Wife both sound like high-concept chick flicks. Not that there's anything wrong with that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:03 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
| Inglourious Bastards opens today. Can't wait to see it. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:06 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
Joe Vitus wrote: Inglourious Bastards opens today. Can't wait to see it.
The bulk of the reviews are spectacularly good, much better than I ever expected them to be. Most say it's either 1) his best since Pulp Fiction; or 2) his best movie ever.
Then there are the naysayers, and they make it sound really bad. It sounds like a love-it-or-hate-it affair. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:17 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
Seeing the trailer with Earl, I wanted to see the movie immediately. I don't care what the critics think, and my impression is that they are more against it than for it.
I'm spotty with Tarantino. Liked Resevoir Dogs. Hated Pulp Fiction. Loved Kill Bill, especially Vol. 1, and enjoyed half of Death Proof (the part in Austin). But one look at the trailer for Inglourious Bastards and I though, "I have to see this. NOW." |
Last edited by Joe Vitus on Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:04 am; edited 1 time in total
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:49 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
| It looks like The Dirty Dozen with lots more gore and a fantasy finale. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:04 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
| To me, I looks like a comic book version of The Dirty Dozen, which is something, unlike the original, that I could watch. Tarantino is rarely all that violent, though the situations suggest a lot o more violence than is shown. (The eye in Kill Bill is an exception; it was also so implausible that I don't know how anyone could take it seriously enough to be grossed out.) |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Inglourious Basterds, was predicted, on the link that inla provided in the Lobby, to have a very good opening. I don't think so. Of course I'm not always right like some on here. 
Dargis gave it a some good some bsd (boring), review. She (is it a she) also mentions his longggggg dialogues. That alone can stop me from seeing it. Tarantino can write the most annoying and circular dialogues in the business.
I think his biggest flaw, is that he it too full of himself and thinks he has strong points in all facets of film making. He doesn't. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Just read Turan's review of Basterds. He writes some things about Quentin that are similar to what I said about him. My soulmate Kenneth.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:00 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
| About Dargis: as you may know, when she pans a movie, that's a good sign I'm going to love it. And vice versa. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 6:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
| She didn't actually pan it, but it was more negative than positive. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| inlareviewer |
| Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 6:21 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 1949
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
It's a funny thing about Manohla -- she was much less outré when she wrote for the Weekly and (briefly) for the L.A. Times. Cannot say whether the move to NYT had anything to do with her current I Shall Be A SuperCritic If It Kills You stance. Certainly, she's always been post-Kael idiosyncratic, but the divide has grown notably wider in the last few years of NYT reviewing.
However, having been on the average in complete accord with Uncle Kenneth of LAT, long before he alone of the local criticalities nailed the inequities of The Great Big Boat Movie and took predictably enormous public outrage over his antipathetic stance; and having since met him as a colleague and found him to be that rara avis, a critic who is a truly lovely and intelligent human being (a trait shared by fellow LADCC member-cum-film reviewer Amy Nicholson, wonderful dame), it is my experience that 90 per cent of the time, even when disagreeing with his conclusions -- as in Milk, for recent example -- am invariably able to understand why he arrived at same when seeing the film. Also, cannot help but hear his voice when reading him now. Thus, his opinions carry weight with me.
Am fairly certain that Inglourious Basterds will be a big fat hit, and will see it eventually, yet it's not high on my list to rush out and see, and not just because have run hot and cold on Tarentino ever since Pulp Fiction; frankly, scalping scenes give me nightmares...must have been a pioneer or sump'n in a past existence. David Denby's New Yorker review also gave me pause. Mainly, however trivial it may seem, it's 2 1/2 hours long, and still haven't redressed the nearly 3 irretrievable hours that The Carious Cuse of Bunjamin Betton took from my dwindling existence. Life's too short, and Mr. Angelina Jolie doesn't need my assistance in raising his point-percentage margin. Am avid, if not rabid, to see District 9 and the Zellweger vehicle and Taking Woodstock, though.
Nonsequiturial sidebar: Still pray that someday Li'l Renée will do The Jo Van Fleet Story. She looks increasingly like a glammed-up version of Jo with each film. Love that Van Fleet, love that Li'l Renée.
Meanwhile, was extremely taken by (500) Days of Summer, that Joseph G-L is so talented, and La Belle Deschanel has the keenest ability to deliver spiky unpleasantries without losing her personal charm. Didn't find it extravagantly inventive, but found it inventive and original enough to creep past a few prior contenders on my (admittedly skimpy) Year's Favorites List. Furthermore, it may, as more than one observer has noted, have the best closing line of any film this year thus far. Quirky but not intrusively so, very well-observed as to male/female interactions in The Digital Age, and altogether quite involving.
Of course, THE movie of our recent film going must wait until it's possible for me to do justice to why I loved it, perhaps in a (Famous inla First) actual review of it for Lorne to post. For now, let's just say that Julie & Julia is now my third (second if you count Up and Hurt Locker as tied for first) favorite film of 2009 so far, and that the bipolar, seam-full aspects that most critics belabor were probably my favorite thing about the movie, apart from the awards-bound Mrs. Gummer and Stanley T. (and a scene-devouring Jane Lynch). It's not deep-dish, it won't change the world as we know it or would like to see it, but it seemed to me entirely delectable. Would say that at least 80 per cent of the audience were wommyn, and more power to 'em. We went out and gorged ourselves at Le Petit Bistro afterwards. Fully expect to see it again after I've dieted.
The Edit function is to inlareviewer as catnip is to a tabby |
Last edited by inlareviewer on Sat Aug 22, 2009 3:16 am; edited 15 times in total
_________________
"And take extra care with strangers/Even flowers have their dangers/And though scary is exciting/Nice is different than good." --Stephen Sondheim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
