| Author |
Message |
|
| billyweeds |
 Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:00 pm |
 |
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
Marj wrote: carrobin wrote: I'm also a Hoffman fan. I even liked "Wag the Dog."
I liked it too. And I also don't think one must be a fan of only one. Both actor's are from similar schools of acting. Beyond that it's really a matter of taste.
Boy, Billy, you and I are really differing today.
And that's rare. Actually I liked Everybody's Fine all right. It just wasn't great De Niro, though he was good enough in it.
Here's another point of difference:
I loathed Wag the Dog.
I particularly loathed Hoffman in it. The only thing I liked about it was De Niro.
Go figure. |
|
|
| Back to top |
  
|
| shannon |
| Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:44 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 1628
Location: NC
|
marantzo wrote: "I agree it's kinda weird to use spoiler alerts for history, but the Mary Surratt case is something I for one was relatively clueless about, so I appreciate it"
Did anyone on here know the case of Mary Surrat? I certainly didn't, but I'm not a Yankee.
Hey, I didn't say don't do it, just that it's funny.
Am I the only one that does research (ie Wikipedia  ) before watching a history-based film? I don't really want to rely on Robert Redford for historical accuracy. (Or Wikipedia, but at least they have citations.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
" Am I the only one that does research (ie Wikipedia Wink ) before watching a history-based film? "
I think so.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marj |
| Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 9:17 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 10497
Location: Manhattan
|
marantzo wrote: " Am I the only one that does research (ie Wikipedia Wink ) before watching a history-based film? "
I think so.
I wouldn't want to spoil the movie, but I always do research after seeing it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
If I remember correctly The Conspirator was an accurate account.
I'm sure this has been said often, but the acting is top notch right down the line and the two leads are exceptional. There will definitely be a number of Oscar nominations for this one. Redford should certainly get one also.
I noticed on IMDB that the metacritic reviews percentage gave it 55/100.
What movie did they see???? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| bartist |
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:17 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Posts: 6961
Location: Black Hills
|
Quote: I used to hate history, didn't you? It's all just a load of stuff that's already happened.
-- "In Bruges" |
_________________
He was wise beyond his years, but only by a few days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:41 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
Don't be so sure about nominations for The Conspirator. Despite the fact that it was a wonderful, memorable, superbly acted and directed movie:
1) It came out too early in the year to be remembered by short-attention-span Hollywood.
2) It got only middling reviews.
3) Box office was mediocre.
4) Redford is considered old news.
Too bad. It's so much better than The Help that it isn't funny, but The Help will get the nominations The Conspirator deserves. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 9:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Having come out in April did make me think that it might be forgotten. Changing the nominations to ten from five should be a help. I am actually shocked that it got luke warm reviews. I took it for granted that the reviews were very good until I saw the metacritic's score and your comment about the reviews.
I'm going to check out the reviews on metacritic so I can decide which critics I can trust. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| whiskeypriest |
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:01 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 6916
Location: "It's a Dry Heat."
|
marantzo wrote: "I agree it's kinda weird to use spoiler alerts for history, but the Mary Surratt case is something I for one was relatively clueless about, so I appreciate it"
Did anyone on here know the case of Mary Surrat? I certainly didn't, but I'm not a Yankee.
I saw Straight Time at a screening by a friend of mine who was a movie distributor (or whatever you call them). Hoffman was very good and the movie was also. I was surprised when it hit the theatres and quickly disappeared. I also saw Julia at a screening and thought it was a sappy piece of crap. It ended up being a big success and won Oscars which were definitely not deserved.
But then the US Civil War is one of my hobby horses.
I've used spoiler alerts for historical events, but usually in a (probably failed) attempt to be amusing. As in, "The exceitment quotient in Titanic picks up when the boat starts to sink." |
_________________
I ask you, Velvel, as a rational man, which of us is possessed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| whiskeypriest |
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:03 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 6916
Location: "It's a Dry Heat."
|
gromit wrote: Watched The Awful Truth (1937) for the first time. Most of it grated on me. It's a simple but fine enough premise for a screwball comedy. Cary Grant and Irene Dunne are separated due to suspicions on both ends, but they have to wait 60 days before the court will approve the divorce. During that time, they squabble and proceed to wreck each other's new romances.
But it's really poorly scripted with groan-inducing contrived gags unsubtly hammered home.
Every hackneyed gag is repeated at least three times for a rather deadening effect. It seemed like comedy for those very slow on the uptake. Cary Grant tries to be winning, and Dunne has an assortment of hairdos and weird outfits which nearly distract from the shopworn antics. After a while the only thing that kept my attention was the occasional poor edits. |
_________________
I ask you, Velvel, as a rational man, which of us is possessed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| whiskeypriest |
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:06 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 6916
Location: "It's a Dry Heat."
|
marantzo wrote: Having come out in April did make me think that it might be forgotten. Changing the nominations to ten from five should be a help. I am actually shocked that it got luke warm reviews. I took it for granted that the reviews were very good until I saw the metacritic's score and your comment about the reviews.
I'm going to check out the reviews on metacritic so I can decide which critics I can trust. |
_________________
I ask you, Velvel, as a rational man, which of us is possessed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:50 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
whiskeypriest wrote: gromit wrote: Watched The Awful Truth (1937) for the first time. Most of it grated on me. It's a simple but fine enough premise for a screwball comedy. Cary Grant and Irene Dunne are separated due to suspicions on both ends, but they have to wait 60 days before the court will approve the divorce. During that time, they squabble and proceed to wreck each other's new romances.
But it's really poorly scripted with groan-inducing contrived gags unsubtly hammered home.
Every hackneyed gag is repeated at least three times for a rather deadening effect. It seemed like comedy for those very slow on the uptake. Cary Grant tries to be winning, and Dunne has an assortment of hairdos and weird outfits which nearly distract from the shopworn antics. After a while the only thing that kept my attention was the occasional poor edits. Wrongwrongwrongwrongwrong. Wrong.
Agree with whiskey. The Awful Truth is one of the funniest movies ever, and Grant and Dunne are brilliant; so is Ralph Bellamy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| carrobin |
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:54 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 7795
Location: NYC
|
| Poor Ralph Bellamy was always being dumped by the star. Over the weekend I caught a really bad but oddly charming Carole Lombard flick with some French guy I never heard of as the newcomer who wins her away from Bellamy. (Title was "Fool for Scandal.") How many of those roles did he play, anyway? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| grace |
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:11 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 3215
|
carrobin wrote: Poor Ralph Bellamy was always being dumped by the star. Over the weekend I caught a really bad but oddly charming Carole Lombard flick with some French guy I never heard of as the newcomer who wins her away from Bellamy. (Title was "Fool for Scandal.") How many of those roles did he play, anyway?
I watched Fool for Scandal also and loved it - the badness was just a kind of tasty gravy that enhanced the experience. And I also had the "it's Ralph Bellamy! Again!" reaction. He played the Ralph Bellamy role in His Girl Friday too. Bellamy was important offscreen, too - a founder of SAG, and as President of Actors Equity during a tough time. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:34 pm |
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9016
Location: Shanghai
|
billyweeds wrote: The Awful Truth is one of the funniest movies ever, and Grant and Dunne are brilliant; so is Ralph Bellamy.
I just tried to think of one funny moment from the film. I liked the way Grant ran out of the room chasing the music teacher. Good brief physical comedy. Though that gag tried my patience with the ridiculous amount of noise coming form their fight in the next room, for an over-extended period of time, while Dunne et. al pretend that it's nothing.
Handing off the brush off letter with the line Here's your diploma was witty, though Aunt patsy transitioning into an Eve Arden role seemed a bit odd.
But the movie was mostly a mish-mash of other films, including Asta the Thin Man dog as Mr. Smith (that was Asta, right?) |
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
