If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Rita doing her thang. The movie Pal Joey with Frank Sinatra was on over the weekend. Great stuff.
You are currently browsing the archive for the Film category.
The trailer everyone is talking about (filmed on a phone in a movie theatre). Everytime it’s uploaded to Youtube, Paramount order a takedown.
Yes that’s the head of the Statue of Liberty at the end. Poor quality I know, but these videos are hard to find.
Dailymotion still have it:
I went to see it last night. One word.
Stunning.
I just can’t imagine someone else acting the role of Captain Kirk other than William Shatner. At least we have another Star Trek film to look forward to though.
There should be an interesting discussion on Newsnight tonight when their culture correspondent Stephen Smith interviews Ken Loach, the Palm D’Or winner for the Wind that Shakes the Barley. He hits back at the “headbangers” who’ve accused him of hating his country and tells Newsnight he is proud to be British.
Rating: out of 5
So I went to see the remake of the 1976 classic, The Omen. I have always liked the original, and have seen it a number of times. The remake is an almost verbatim remake, with little in the way of additions or improvements. On it’s own it may have made it, but in comparison to the original, it is a pathetic recreation. It appears much of the script was lifted directly from the original, most especially noticeable in the scene where the photographer and Mr. Thorne are in the abode of the now dead priest.
But my venom is not mainly for the production of a remake, or of the quality of the remake. It is the laziness of the post-production. Did anyone, at all, involved in the making of the film, not actually watch it once if was finished?
You may not believe me, but the gobshites who made this film managed to produce it in a way that meant the microphones are visible in the early scenes. And no, they are not actually meant to be there, they are actually part of the making of the film. At first I thought it was a brief mistake, then it kept happening, until at one point I thought the lead actress was going to get clobbered on the head. As another reviewer notes:
When it first appeared I thought…hmmm are there reporters in this scene or is that just a little flub? No… the camera pans back, no reporters in sight. Must have just been a mistake. I figured it was a small mistake. But then, it appears in the next scene, and the next scene, and the NEXT scene, and then in almost every single scene from that point on. At one point it almost HIT the actress head while shes sitting on the couch yelling at the nanny to take damien upstairs. It got so bad that you could tell the producers even tried cutting it out of some scenes. Suddenly this dark black fuzzy line appears at the top of the screen attempting to hide the mic. Unfortunatly even the black fuzzy line couldnt keep this thing out of the shot. It dips down below the line many many times. How do you take a horror movie seriously when the microphone is in all the shots??
Surely someone spotted this? Surely someone suggested removing the mics with some digital wizardry?
It spoils the entire film, and there were mumbles of questions and disbelief from other people in the cinema. Some even laughed, and I don’t blame them. There is simply no excuse for it. It’s lazy and unprofessional, it’s rule number one of film making - don’t let the audience know it’s actually make-believe.
I went to see it today. An emotional rollercoaster, and well worth seeing.
But I found Flight 93 to be a better film overall. There are two chief differences between the two films.
First, Flight 93 shows the people at the other end of the phone. We get to see a wife’s or mother’s reaction to their loved ones calling them. There are protracted heart wrenching conversations between families, during the course of the hijacking. This makes Flight 93 a far more emotional experience. Much of the film is devoted to these phone calls.
Second, Flight 93 showed very little military reaction. The film instead centered on the passengers and the hijackers. No scenes of the planes hitting the WTC, only word coming through on the phones. The early parts of United are almost entirely devoted to air traffic control and NORAD reactions.
Two different approaches to tell the same overall story, I found Flight 93 to be the better of the two.
Cian didn’t like it, but given the comments, it seems he didn’t stay until the end of the credits to see the last scene.
I have to say I did rather like it as special-effects extravaganzas go, especially since almost none of the filming was done in San Francisco, and yet almost the whole film is based there.
If you do go to see it, do stay until the end of the credits, it is a rather critical scene.
Cian has incidentally moved to a new home over at cianboland.com.
I meant to blog this earlier, but has anyone else seen United 93? I haven’t seen much discussion of it in the Irish blogosphere.
I actually didn’t realise it was released straight to DVD last week until I spotted it in Xtra-vision, whereupon I instantly rented it.
And I have to concurr with the reviews I have read from bloggers in the States. It is a film done with taste and and with a rather unnatural sense of familiarity. At many points you do feel like one of the passengers, and there appeared to be various devices used by the director to hook the viewer into associating with the film. Anyone who has travelled on planes will find themselves questioning themselves, and what they would do in that position.
In some ways it is like the discussion of the Falling Man picture earlier. It is compelling to watch.
At times it is difficult to watch the phone calls between passengers and their families, but I recommend United 93 nonetheless.
Update: Thanks Simon, got mixed up between the website URL and the film title. But it is the one that was just released in the US.
Sorry for yet another video, but this is just too funny to pass up.
Click here.
via Boing
So Tom Cruise actually comes across looking like a sensible human being. The video of it actually makes the guy from Channel 4 look like a plonker, by virtue of the fact that Cruise takes a completely reasonable position.
Is he on cocaine, drunk or just plain crazy?
Update, June 17, 2005: The video link appears not to be working now, so try this one instead.
Doesn’t sound like a great one, but then what do I expect from Scott? Anyone else going to catch it?
This is interesting news. Not only that but it got Slashdotted. I have read about the advent of digital cinema for some time, what amazes me is the sheer scale of the files.
Cinemas using the technology will be able to download the latest releases to a computer server via satellite at a lower cost.
That would have to be one quick connection, I think these films are really really big files.
I will be glad to see the back of flickers and scratches on the reels. Now if only someone would invent something for getting people not to talk during a film.
I forgot to give some kind of review of The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. There’s little I can add to the reviews around the net, besides that I thoroughly enjoyed it, it was full of dark humour, quirky events, and some quite memorable scenes - I think some of the reviews don’t do it justice. Bill Murray was flawless in the role of Steve Zissou, and his dry wit had me laughing out loud at times. Definately worth a look, as long as you remember it is a certain type of humour, similar to its predecessor, the Royal Tenenbaums.
Lots of new films coming out. I wonder which ones I will go see.
A rather bitter but funny contributor to Slashdot notes that:
“The BBC is reporting that the movie industry, in yet another illustration of just how much damage the Internet is doing to the long-suffering members of the MPAA, has just endured a record breaking $1Billion dollar takings for the single month of June. Clearly there is a desperate need to tighten up copyright laws in the face of this huge mountain of cash that is literally being metaphorically syphoned into the studios’ pockets. How will they survive? “
Hehe. How indeed.
Dan Drezner joins an interesting discussion on the philosophy of Spider Man 2. The film isn’t even out here yet. Do not read it unless you want to spoil the story, but I do like the way the arguments are presented. I think that Henry Farrell over at Crooked Timber probably has the best conclusion.
Matthew Yglesias also has some new takes on Moore, and comparisons with Bush, strangely enough. Of course I have read Chrisopther Hitchens’ now famous criticism of Moore. So too, I have read “Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11“, by Dave Kopel.
But I like Yglesias’s take:
The funny thing, though, is that if I wrote “The 56 Deceits of George W. Bush” (as, indeed, many people have done) then some very intelligent Volokh Conspirator (as, indeed, many of the conspirators are) would doubtless have written a post in response (as, indeed, I’ve read at the Conspiracy) arguing that most of the alleged “lies” weren’t lies per se (and, indeed, they’re mostly misleading juxtapositions of technically true information) and that these sorts of ad hominem attacks don’t really prove that the presidents’ policies are actually wrong.
The really funny thing, though, is that while George W. Bush is president of the United States and wrecking (a) the country’s foreign policy and (b) the country’s fiscal policy, Michael Moore is a somewhat famous guy who makes movies. Get it?
Hehe.
Kevin Drum asks if Fahrenheit 9/11 serves as a pointedly political Rorschach test: you see in it primarily a reflection of yourself. Having seen the film on Sunday I am inclined to agree with the quote Kevin gives from the Volkh blog:
I was struck by the sheer cunningness of Moore’s film….notice the film’s meticulousness in saying only (or mostly) “true” or defensible things in support of a completely misleading impression….a genuinely impressive accomplishment in a perverse sort of way (the way an ingenious crime is impressive) — a case study in how to convert elements that are mainly true into an impression that is entirely false.
Drum continues by taking a dig at Andy Sullivan, Glenn Reynolds, but in a very funny way.
Excuse me? This is Andrew Sullivan complaining about a movie being “poisonous to debate, to reason and to civility”? This from the same guy who referred to the left as a “fifth column” five days after 9/11 and followed that up with endlessly poisonous vituperation against anyone who questioned George Bush’s steadfastness and virtue in the war against terror?
What’s next? Noam Chomsky complaining that Moore is too one sided? Tom Friedman suggesting that he relies too heavily on anecdotes? Glenn Reynolds noting his reliance on snark and contempt instead of reasoned argument?
I do agree with Kevin’s review of the film: “a bit mediocre even as polemic”.
That it was.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman with his verdict on Fahrenheit 9/11. He pretty much supports Moore:
And for all its flaws, “Fahrenheit 9/11″ performs an essential service. It would be a better movie if it didn’t promote a few unproven conspiracy theories, but those theories aren’t the reason why millions of people who aren’t die-hard Bush-haters are flocking to see it. These people see the film to learn true stories they should have heard elsewhere, but didn’t. Mr. Moore may not be considered respectable, but his film is a hit because the respectable media haven’t been doing their job.
He concludes:
“Fahrenheit 9/11″ is a tendentious, flawed movie, but it tells essential truths about leaders who exploited a national tragedy for political gain, and the ordinary Americans who paid the price.
I am looking forward to seeing it next week.
Michael Moore’s new film has surpassed even the most optimistic predictions. It has quite literally turned into phenomenon. I am looking forward to seeing it, but I have taken on board the numerous criticisms of the film, most pointedly seen in the blogopshere.
I just watched Life is Beautiful, after putting off seeing if for 6 whole years. To say I was impressed would be understating, to say it was a one of the best films I have ever seen, would be putting it mildly.
I have seen no better depiction of the Holocaust - and no better depiction of the strength of human nature to overcome intensely adverse circumstance.
Yes you can see a preview now of Star Trek: Nemesis, not as much of a fan as I used to be, but was once a real Trekker :)
Recent Comments