Author |
Message |
|
bartist |
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:17 pm |
|
|
Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Posts: 6961
Location: Black Hills
|
carrobin wrote: I did like "The Ghost Writer" a lot. Though I kind of wish they'd kept the British title, "The Ghost." I guess they figured people would go in expecting Patrick Swayze.
If it were a current film, Swayze would be perfectly cast as "The Ghost."
Sorry. Feeling a bit punchy, as I think a mail account got hacked and someone might be tracking family information. If you see "deleted" on a couple recent postings, it's because they contain family references that I want to avoid putting out there, at least for a while. |
_________________ He was wise beyond his years, but only by a few days. |
|
Back to top |
|
Joe Vitus |
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:45 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
Sucks. |
_________________ You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
Back to top |
|
gromit |
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 7:42 am |
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9016
Location: Shanghai
|
Billy, there was actually a Free Screening of Margaret in the Village last week, with Lonergan and some other cast members doing a Q&A afterwards.
But, I only found out exactly one hour before it started, so it seemed pointless to post it here.
I didn't know when I saw the film that writer-director Lonergan plays the girl's father living in California, while the mother is played by Lonergan's real life wife J. Smith-Cameron. I thought she was terrific in a role that was no doubt designed for her. Interesting to cast you and your wife as a divorced couple, and have the film revolve around the screen couple's daughter.
From quick wiki-ing, they do have a real-life daughter, but I have no idea how old. Seems Lonergan's wife is 7 years older than him, and the film was made 7 years ago, so ... well, not much.
I guess he's now teh age she was in the film. |
_________________ Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
Back to top |
|
gromit |
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 8:18 am |
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9016
Location: Shanghai
|
Quote: There are "officially" 3 different cuts of the movie, Margaret
To recount the ins and outs of the legal battles surrounding the film would take all day, but here's the short version. Lonergan (for still unspecified reasons) wasn't able to get a cut under the 150 minute limit he was given on his contract, and he borrowed "several hundred thousand dollars" from close friend Matthew Broderick to keep the editing bay open, and give him more time to cut. “I don’t want to say how much it was,” said. “I just wanted to help him get it done. It wasn’t a carefully thought-out thing. He’s my best friend, and if he’s really stuck, I would always try to help him.”
After much heartache and legal tangles, in 2008 -- three years after the film shot -- Lonergan delivered his cut, which we saw in theaters running exactly 150 minutes, however there were two more versions that were in the mix.
In 2007, financier and producer Gary Gilbert ("Garden State") -- frustrated by the delays -- hired editor Dylan Tichenor ("Brokeback Mountain") to deliver a two hour version known as "the Peggy cut" (named after Gilbert's Peggy Productions).
Legal entanglements held up the release of the film, but in what was hoped could be a compromise between all interested parties, Martin Scorsese (edit: and Thelma S.) was hired to do his own version (he had previously seen Lonergan's 3 hour cut). Waiving his fee, Scorsese snipped the movie into a 160 minute version.
So as I understand it, the three "official" cuts they are talking about doesn't include the 3 hour Lonergan director cut which is now out on dvd, along with the 2.5 hour theatrical (Lonergan contracted) version.
And the producer cut 2 hour version and the Scorsese 2'40" versions not available anywhere. |
_________________ Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
Back to top |
|
knox |
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 11:08 am |
|
|
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 1246
Location: St. Louis
|
Moonrise Kingdom - yes. Sweet, yet unsentimental. Cornell boxes puts it well. He's back to Tenenbaumial form.
Woody - yes, too many films, more rocks than gems. "Rome" is terrible - no rise, all fall. The only thing worse is my Rome joke.
Margaret - have been suffering the death by a thousand "cuts" - ceasing to care now, just pick one that doesn't make my bladder explode, and send it to the theaters and shut up about it.
Bart - won't say anything about your family's struggles as dwarfs in a traveling carnival. Privacy is important. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
gromit |
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:34 pm |
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9016
Location: Shanghai
|
knox wrote:
Margaret ... just pick one that doesn't make my bladder explode, and send it to the theaters and shut up about it.
Actually it played in a 2 NY theaters for a week late last year and that was the end of its theatrical run, besides one theater in England and currently one in Australia.
It's now out on dvd in both the 2.5 and 3 hour versions.
With the long cut getting a lot of raves.
and the shorter version very good. |
_________________ Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
Back to top |
|
marantzo |
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 1:54 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
I have no love for Rome. I was there way back when. The architecture, ancient and non ancient is impressive, but the guys in Rome were pretty stuffy from my perspective, and Rome was expensive then so I can imagine how expensive it is now. Florence and Naples are a lot more fun and the citizens are a lot more fun-loving, though Naples has some very iffy characters around the port but we never felt threatened.
So for me it's To Rome With Reservations.
Woody's London, Barcelona and Paris movies are good to excellent, in my book. Those three cities are big favourites of mine. I understand why Woody's Rome movie is apparently lame. Rome is stiff and only a place that rich people can enjoy.
That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
gromit |
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:41 pm |
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9016
Location: Shanghai
|
I really liked Rome.
But a side trip to Orvieto was great. |
_________________ Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
Back to top |
|
billyweeds |
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 3:19 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
I had an absolutely great time in Rome. Like it much better than either London or Barcelona, though it's not up to Paris. Almost nothing is. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
marantzo |
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 4:29 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
London ain't all that pretty and it costs an arm and a leg now, so I don't have a yen to go there, but Barcelona? Barcelona, unless it has changed since I was there, is a great place.
Has anyone spent time in Florence? Another lovely friendly city to spend time in. Naples of course is pretty down and dirty, but I sort of like that. The harbor, when I was there, was gorgeous at night. I don't know if the De Vinci and Michelangelo are still travelling but they are the two most beautiful ocean liners I've ever seen. They were in the harbor when I was in Naples. I can see that people can be quite bothered by Naples. Oh, yeah, Sienna is also a nice place to stay.
Paris is magnificent. It has become a bit Americanized since I lived there. which is not a step forward, but the Parisians are far more civil than when I was there and that's a big step forward. When I was there in 1994 it wasn't too expensive either. The De Gaulle airport is one ugly mess and a long way from Paris. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
billyweeds |
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:38 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
If I were told that I'd have to spend the rest of my life in NYC, Paris, and San Francisco, I would say "Yessss!!!!" |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Marc |
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 8:58 pm |
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
Quote: NYC, Paris, and San Francisco, I would say "Yessss!!!!"
I would say "oui". |
|
|
Back to top |
|
bartist |
Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 1:44 pm |
|
|
Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Posts: 6961
Location: Black Hills
|
billyweeds wrote: I had an absolutely great time in Rome. Like it much better than either London or Barcelona, though it's not up to Paris. Almost nothing is.
I am not a city person (maybe a touch of OCD which wants to keep track of things around me and...well, big cities overwhelm that system...) and even I can imagine being stuck in Paris. Paris is how cities are supposed to be cities. |
_________________ He was wise beyond his years, but only by a few days. |
|
Back to top |
|
billyweeds |
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:43 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
Speaking of (ahem!) current film--I saw Magic Mike last night and was rather less impressed than I was hoping to be. Channing Tatum, Matthew McConaughey, and Cody Horn give beautiful performances in this story of a male stripper (Tatum) with higher aspirations and a nascent soulfulness. McConaughey plays the boss of the strip club and might just score an Oscar nod for supporting actor. Horn is a Hilary Swank lookalike with (IMO) more charisma, and Tatum cements his position as a genuine, honest-to-God movie star.
The movie is worth seeing, but probably as a DVD rental or a cable viewing. The problems are Soderbergh's sometimes torturously slow pace and his low-light and grainy visuals. Soderbergh seems to fluctuate between slick-looking product like Erin Brockovich and "gritty" projects like this one. I wish he'd gone for slick here. It would have worked better for me. As it is, it's definitely a good movie, but falls considerably short of great. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
carrobin |
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:00 am |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 7795
Location: NYC
|
Billy--no kind words for Matt Bomer? If I went to see the film (which I almost certainly won't have time for), it would be for him. He's so rakishly charming on "White Collar." |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|