| Author |
Message |
|
| shannon |
 Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:56 pm |
 |
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 1628
Location: NC
|
| I agree. I think she aquitted herself quite nicely as their relationship moved beyond the flirtatious stage. And she was flat-out excellent after a certain spoiler-worthy event occurs... |
|
|
| Back to top |
   
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 5:20 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
shannon wrote: She was quite excellent towards the end of the film, but the flirtatious scenes struck me as a bit false and contrived. And I think this is as much her fault as it is Rhys-Meyer's. Both seemed awkward. And really, both seemed too young for their roles.
Funnily enough, I completely disagree with you on where Johansson was good and not so hot. I thought she was fine until the situation became more desperate, at which point I think her acting became one-dimensional and amateurish. I don't think Woody helped her at all; maybe he is too blinded by dirty-old-manism, but her scenes with Rhys Meyers after the shit hits the fan (don't want to post spoiler alerts) are not very well done; no nuance at all. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| chillywilly |
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 6:41 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 8251
Location: Salt Lake City
|
| Not having seen Match Point yet, do you think Erika Christensen (Swimfan, The Upside of Anger) would have done better in this role? |
_________________
Chilly
"If you should die before me / Ask if you could bring a friend" |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:06 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
chillywilly wrote: Not having seen Match Point yet, do you think Erika Christensen (Swimfan, The Upside of Anger) would have done better in this role?
Impossible to answer. I don't think either of the actresses is the most technically skilled on the planet, but Allen wanted Johansson and therefore she probably did better under his direction than Christensen would have. However, who knows, if Mike Binder of Upside had been directing? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:50 am |
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9010
Location: Shanghai
|
Watched two smaller films of 2005. Junebug and Good Night, and Good Luck. Both seemed like they could have been financed by Phillip Morris. Enough smoking to almost kick my allergies into a state of alert.
I wanted to like Junebug more than I actually did. I just get frustrated at movies in which most of the characters seem like they've never interacted with a person before and/or have no idea what kind of impression their behavior has on others. Conveniently for the film, noone even attempts to come up with compromise solutions.
Also for a small, observational type of film, it seemed to overplay character actions and behavior. I mean, we understand that younger brother Johnny is bad at communicating and holds supressed anger. But does he really get frustrated and throw a mini-fit unbuttoning his shirt?
Amy Adams is impressive, but even her character is a little overdone at times. And the male charcaters are curiously under-developed. The husband serves as the lynchpin of the plot, but mostly we see just him taking naps at his parents' house.
Along with Hustle & Flow and Walk The Line, it seems that in 2005 filmmakers discovered the South. |
Last edited by gromit on Sat Jan 21, 2006 9:37 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:36 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9010
Location: Shanghai
|
Good Night, and Good Luck. is a very solid film that captures the period and mood expertly. Will likely leave many wanting a broader picture or understanding of the forces at work in creating, sustaining and ultimately bringing down McCarthy. But the film is very successful at what it aims to do, focusing tightly on Murrow and CBS' role.
They very deftly and effectively let Sen. Joe McCarthy play himself. Impressive understated performance by David Strathairn as Murrow. I also enjoyed Dianne Reeves as the studio jazz singer, apparently an amalgamation of two greats of that era, Dinah Washington and Sarah Vaughan. Also, a good use of period cigarette advetisements, along with everybody smoking as though they'd just invested their life savings in RJR stock.
Good film, and good watching. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| lshap |
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:24 am |
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 4248
Location: Montreal
|
Quote: I'm not a gay woman.
I've always been concerned that I may be a gay woman trapped in a man's body. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| lshap |
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:27 am |
|
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 4248
Location: Montreal
|
| Gromit - I agreed with every word on your take of Good Night, and Good Luck, and agreed with every word, except two or three, in your review of Junebug. I consider Amy Adams performance to have been terrific enough to get my Blanche vote for Best Supporting Actress. I liked the film better than you for the singular reason that she was in it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:37 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
I thought Junebug was a far more unusual and worthwhile film than Good Night, and Good Luck, which beyond its admittedly superb 1950s trappings did little to enliven or elucidate the McCarthy situation, and seemed, moreover, more obsessed with being politically correct than dramatically inventive or galvanizing. The photography and Dianne Reeves were the most successful elements of the movie, along with Frank Langella's marvelous supporting performance as William Paley. The Downey-Clarkson subplot went from being non-essential to quite inane.
Junebug, on the other hand, was a highly original take on the fish-out-of-water theme, with several acting jobs outside of the magnificent Amy Adams which were almost as great--notably Embeth Davidtz as Madeleine, a performance destined to be underrated if played well since the attitude toward the character was so fascinatingly ambiguous. Davidtz did such an insightful job that she deserves more praise than she's been getting. (She just misses my Blanche-nom cut.) |
Last edited by billyweeds on Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:36 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:02 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
lshap wrote: Quote: I'm not a gay woman.
I've always been concerned that I may be a gay woman trapped in a man's body.
Do you play softball? |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:08 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9010
Location: Shanghai
|
GN, & GL. was a small film, but which should be seen as holding a mirror up to our present times. Should the media just report what those in power do and say, or should they interpret, question, editorialize? Obviously an important question in the face of the way the media passively accepted all that the Bush Admin said in a new time of peril, just rolling over from September 11 through the Iraq War and only recently trying to discover a backbone.
The film questions the limits of power, the role of the 4th Estate, the premise of objectivity. It proposes CBS/Murrow's role as the Watergate moment of the 50's. Leading to the question of when/if the media will make a stand for constitutional rights in the present era of unlimited detention, The Patriot Act, and warrantless searches.
From the film we get a glimpse behind the camera of how things were run and perceived. Television discovering its own power in the politics of the nation. The Nixon-Kennedy debates just in the offing. As for the present, it also put me in mind of the Fox Network, smoking bans, and the fact that "terrorist" or more questionably, "enemy combatant") is the new communist, pinko, fellow traveller.
It's a small focused film, but one with clear and intentional ripples to the present.
And I agree that Langella was superb in a small role. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:11 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
| Apropos of Junebug and the women mentioned above, the commentary track on the DVD apparently includes only Adams and Davidtz of the actors. I'm interested in their interplay as people since their chemistry as actors was so palpable, especially in the fingernail-painting scene. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| globear |
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:39 am |
|
|
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 22
Location: Hartney Manitoba
|
| I'm going to see Mrs. Henderson Presents tonite.. has anyone seen it? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Melody |
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 1:41 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2242
Location: TX
|
gromit wrote: ... it seems that in 2005 filmmakers discovered the South.
I haven't seen H&F yet, but they got it (The South) right in Walk the Line and grotesquely caricatured it in Junebug. As much as I love Amy Adams for her bright spark in a box of very dim bulbs, she couldn't save the movie for me.
My theory is, Junebug's collaborators Phil Morrison and Angus MacLachlan (whose only other credit is a student film called Tater Tomater) took a road trip down to North Carolina, met some characters, were amazed that there are towns with green overgrown lawns and no sidewalks, skedaddled back to New York and wrote themselves a movie about The South.
I don't know many people down here in The South who like this movie, but plenty of other folks seem to love it. Junebug is to The South as "Bad Bad Leroy Brown" is to Chicago. |
_________________
My heart told my head: This time, no. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| shannon |
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:25 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 1628
Location: NC
|
| I'm glad somebody agrees with me. Thanks, Melody. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
