Dark Shadows. An interesting gothic piece from the increasingly wearisome Tim Burton that was fairly entertaining until the last 30 minutes where it completely falls apart. Too many ideas are thrown at the screen. Plot twists that make almost no sense and are not developed in the slightest. Also the film doesn't really have an ending. It's like Apocalypse Now where it just stops. It's a shame they probably won't make a sequel since it was released in the wake of The Avengers.
Skyfall-Not only was it a terrific Bond film. Certainly I'd place it in my top three with Goldfinger and Casino Royale but just a terrific film period.
Oh yeah the cinematography was gorgeous. Then again I expect nothing less from Tim in that department.
Don't thank Burton, thank Bruno Delbonnel, who for my money is in the top 3 DPs in the business at the moment. The other two being Deakins and Richardson.
In my film studies I watched the original Lethal Weapon for the second time. Kind of scary how crazy Mel is in that. It does have the best Gary Busey line in a movie. "IT'S GODDAMNED CHRISTMAS!!"
Really? I didn't know that. Makes sense I suppose since he's so intense in that movie as well. Still not my favorite Hamlet. That would go to Kenneth's version which is probably the best film adaptation that I have seen of any Shakespearian play.
I saw Life of PI yesterday with my wife. It was a very good movie. The visuals were fantastic. The 3D was really nice.
Wait till you see Argo! With that film and The Town, Affleck has totally turned around his previous image as a vaguely talented pretty-boy. As it turns out he's rather brilliant and an extremely good actor. I can't recommend Argo enough, even with its historical liberties.
I'm actually not hugely impressed overall with Affleck's 2nd and 3rd efforts. I think the second half of Argo (can't isolate it to an act) works fantastically well, but the first half if conflict-free breezy and boring nonsense. The Town isn't very interesting at all. Gone Baby Gone, however, bears the mark of a very talented filmmaker.
Flyboys Before the US joins the first world war, a diverse group of young American men volunteer to fly for the French air force as fighter pilots, in the first war to use the relatively recently invented (at the time) aeroplane as a weapon. After all, the Wright brothers had made their first successful powered controllable flight only 13 years prior. The story is based on the real Lafayette Escadrille, a squadron consisting mainly of American volunteers. Starring James Franco and Jean Reno. As a lightweight, so to speak, actioner featuring dogfights and aerial acrobatic thrills, it succeeds rather well, in my opinion. It doesn't aim to portray events with the gravity of what one considers a "war movie". Saving Private Ryan, this is not. I haven't seen Red Tails, but I suppose this is the World War I equivalent, in that it is purely for entertainment, and not meant to be thought provoking. Its weakest aspect is the romance plot of sorts that doesn't really go anywhere, between Franco's character and a French girl he meets near their base. In addition to that, there are some things in it that I didn't find believable, and considering that it's loosely based on real events, there shouldn't be any such things. In conclusion; passable. I found it fairly entertaining, but not remarkable in any way.
Youse. I consider the decision to go ahead with the movie to be the inciting incident, so the whole Hollywood stuff constitutes the second act, IMO. And I didn't think much of it. The protagonist encounters no roadblocks whatsoever. It's just "Hey, I know just the guy" stuff. I must stress, though, that the stuff in Iran works very well. Especially when McNairy explains the storyboards - fantastic moment.
I'll agree that Iran is where the film really gets into gear, but there is conflict in the first act -- the struggle to figure out what to do. The second act, getting the ducks in a row for the film, is all quick successes, yeah -- but at the same time, it's basically just an expositional hurdle before the film can get into the meat of its story, and I'm not sure the film would benefit from spending more time on it to make it more of a challenge. Moving through it quickly, and relying on the propulsive energy of the plan coming together and on humor to get the audience through it, is a good choice IMO.
I watched The Bitch with Joan Collins pre-Dynasty. It was written by her sister Jackie Collins. This movie was in my Netflix queue under "long wait" for about six months. Actually I fell asleep on it and didn't find it as campy and one-liner-driven funny as its predecessor The Stud to continue watching but now that I think of it I could have just let it play the past hour I've been awake since I finished watching Columbiana. I lost interest as I watched it as it looked like a regular kid-grows-up-and-gets-revenge-for-parents story and had some really obvious homages to The Professional / Leon. Ah, of course. I just read it was written by Luc Besson. I hope Zoe Saldana can get some better roles in her Avatar and Star Trek off-time.
Oh, it's a good choice for sure. And it's a good film. I just don't think it's all that rich. As for finding out what to do, Affleck's character seems to stumble upon that rather quickly, faces opposition briefly and then moves on. I agree that there are narrative issues, and I think they're inherent in the story - Affleck does his best I guess. TBH, I think it's Valkyrie-par entertainment, which is no shameful thing, but I don't think it's a particularly special film, and the Oscar talk mystifies me (until I remember that hey, it's a film where Hollywood saves people! Of course it'll show up at the Oscars). I am puzzled by the fact that Arkin is being touted for a nomination, which seems insane. Cranston, McNairy, or nothing, for my money.
Of the two Hollywood players in Argo, Goodman was far superior to Arkin. But Cranston was better than both of them.