Facing the Giants (2006)
This movie gets a very high rating for personal reasons. Like others, w/ such a low budget ($70k), it did a lot.
It's a bit cheesy, but for so many possible pitfalls and sensitive issues, there's a lot that cd go wrong. They navigated those well which is quite a feat.
I loved the message and they way it's told w/ focus on God, His word, prayer, trust, faith, etc.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
"Extras" (2005) - 3.5/5
"Extras" (2005)
Not a "hilarious" show. Clever and original, but nothing incredible and kinda slow.
Also, it suffered from high expectations from me.
Not a "hilarious" show. Clever and original, but nothing incredible and kinda slow.
Also, it suffered from high expectations from me.
Monday, March 19, 2007
"Curb Your Enthusiasm" (2000) - 4/5
"Curb Your Enthusiasm" (2000)
Good show, but I had high expectations. I felt like it was "Seinfeld" on cable, but not as good - possibly b/c being like "Seinfeld" made it unoriginal.
Also, I felt like most episodes were formulaic - he wd do something in the begining which wd set him up to screw things up and come back on him later.
He's kinda Jerry and George rolled into one, but w/o the full cast, it's weakened.
Anyway, it's good and I'm told the next few seasons really get strong, but I was let down a little.
Good show, but I had high expectations. I felt like it was "Seinfeld" on cable, but not as good - possibly b/c being like "Seinfeld" made it unoriginal.
Also, I felt like most episodes were formulaic - he wd do something in the begining which wd set him up to screw things up and come back on him later.
He's kinda Jerry and George rolled into one, but w/o the full cast, it's weakened.
Anyway, it's good and I'm told the next few seasons really get strong, but I was let down a little.
Madagascar (2005) - 4/5
Madagascar (2005)
I really liked this movie. The overall story is decent and the characters are good, but the details and little jokes throughout the whole story cracked me up. I just really liked the detailed thought they put into the little actions and jokes and idiosyncrasies of everything: the personalities of the penguins, the mannerisms of the animals, the quick side jokes w/ the monkeys, etc.
So while this movie isn't like an 'instant classic', I had a lot of fun w/ it.
I really liked this movie. The overall story is decent and the characters are good, but the details and little jokes throughout the whole story cracked me up. I just really liked the detailed thought they put into the little actions and jokes and idiosyncrasies of everything: the personalities of the penguins, the mannerisms of the animals, the quick side jokes w/ the monkeys, etc.
So while this movie isn't like an 'instant classic', I had a lot of fun w/ it.
Igby Goes Down (2002) - 3.5/5
Igby Goes Down (2002)
I think I wd have liked this movie more if I were younger or more ideallistic or something. It reminded me a lot of "The Cather in the Rye." I read that when I was older and didn't like it that much - I just thought the kid was annoying, arrogant, selfish, judgemental and a baby... kinda like this movie.
However, in the second half of this movie, they dive deeper into his family and such and it gets better. The dynamic of his dad and brother and just where people start and wind up and how was interesting.
The acting, tone, etc. are all great and Kieran Culkin handles the lead very well. This movie has a lot going for it. I was probably meant to feel sorry for and sympathize w/ the lead more than thinking of him as a punk causing trouble around him, but...
I think I wd have liked this movie more if I were younger or more ideallistic or something. It reminded me a lot of "The Cather in the Rye." I read that when I was older and didn't like it that much - I just thought the kid was annoying, arrogant, selfish, judgemental and a baby... kinda like this movie.
However, in the second half of this movie, they dive deeper into his family and such and it gets better. The dynamic of his dad and brother and just where people start and wind up and how was interesting.
The acting, tone, etc. are all great and Kieran Culkin handles the lead very well. This movie has a lot going for it. I was probably meant to feel sorry for and sympathize w/ the lead more than thinking of him as a punk causing trouble around him, but...
Monday, March 12, 2007
Shopgirl (2005) - 3/5
Shopgirl (2005)
A good little story not trying to take on too much. What makes a relationship work? What makes a person happy? Why sd two people be together?
I love the pace of this movie. It cdn't be slower and more relaxing. Even the intense scenes are slow.
SPOILERS
I have to say that if I was suppose to buy into Mirabelle and Jeremy being together at the end, I don't think I can. I mean, at least, not buy into it and be satisfied w/ it. He just picked up a girl at her art show and slept w/ her soon before they're together. I'm not sure he's all that great of a guy. As for whether or not they are "right" for each other, that may be a separate question, but I think my feeling on it holds.
UPDATE: It seems Mirabelle is given the choice btwn 2 men. Neither, at first, can give her himself: one is self-absorbed and the other is emotionally closed off. However the second can give her other things like attention, gifts, etc. which are good but ultimately not enough.
Jeremy changes and eventually can give himself to her which, in movie reality, is love and is the 'right choice.'
I have to question if at any point either of them are right for her.
A good little story not trying to take on too much. What makes a relationship work? What makes a person happy? Why sd two people be together?
I love the pace of this movie. It cdn't be slower and more relaxing. Even the intense scenes are slow.
SPOILERS
I have to say that if I was suppose to buy into Mirabelle and Jeremy being together at the end, I don't think I can. I mean, at least, not buy into it and be satisfied w/ it. He just picked up a girl at her art show and slept w/ her soon before they're together. I'm not sure he's all that great of a guy. As for whether or not they are "right" for each other, that may be a separate question, but I think my feeling on it holds.
UPDATE: It seems Mirabelle is given the choice btwn 2 men. Neither, at first, can give her himself: one is self-absorbed and the other is emotionally closed off. However the second can give her other things like attention, gifts, etc. which are good but ultimately not enough.
Jeremy changes and eventually can give himself to her which, in movie reality, is love and is the 'right choice.'
I have to question if at any point either of them are right for her.
Stranger Than Fiction (2006) - 4/5
Stranger Than Fiction (2006)
I felt this was an original idea for a story and it was well told and acted.
SPOILERS
It's hard to pin down exactly what the point was, but I'd consider that to be a good thing. Was it that we sdn't let "numbers" control our lives?
Harold's life is all about numbers: he works at the IRS and is OCD about counting everything and living life in a very calculated manner.
Once that's "broken" he starts changing how he lives and actually starts living his life. Then people are brought into his life. Finally, he's forced to living based on "the facts" and chooses to die for someone else. This time his "living by the numbers" is for a purpose and by choice in the "right way."
But that leaves out Karen Eiffel and too many other characters out of the base of the story. However, to some degree it includes those people in Harold's life: the baker, the professor and the friend.
Karen Eiffel's part in the story is too big to be left out.
I'll have to think about this one some more.
I felt this was an original idea for a story and it was well told and acted.
SPOILERS
It's hard to pin down exactly what the point was, but I'd consider that to be a good thing. Was it that we sdn't let "numbers" control our lives?
Harold's life is all about numbers: he works at the IRS and is OCD about counting everything and living life in a very calculated manner.
Once that's "broken" he starts changing how he lives and actually starts living his life. Then people are brought into his life. Finally, he's forced to living based on "the facts" and chooses to die for someone else. This time his "living by the numbers" is for a purpose and by choice in the "right way."
But that leaves out Karen Eiffel and too many other characters out of the base of the story. However, to some degree it includes those people in Harold's life: the baker, the professor and the friend.
Karen Eiffel's part in the story is too big to be left out.
I'll have to think about this one some more.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Lucky Number Slevin (2006) - 2/5
Lucky Number Slevin (2006)
Lots of big names, but Josh Hartnett pretty much cancels all that out.
I bet it was a good read, but the transition to the screen lost a lot. I'd say poor directing, but...???
Lots of big names, but Josh Hartnett pretty much cancels all that out.
I bet it was a good read, but the transition to the screen lost a lot. I'd say poor directing, but...???
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? (2004) - 3.5/5
What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? (2004)
Thought provoking, but a pretty dangerous movie. They certainly take a lot of leaps in their arguments to try to make their points. A good bit of slight-of-hand.
They also hit a lot of topics, concepts, scientific area/theories/ideas, use a cute story, animation, etc. It's hard to focus on one thing and when you try they're already on another point and you've only had time to understand their argument (and not examine it) before they've moved on.
Unfortunately, this probably had the opposite effect on me than what might be intended - I believed it less than they probably wanted. While their spiritual conclusions might be whacko, I'd like to know if their neurology had any merit b/c that cd be pretty interesting.
I wd love to see/read a response to this movie from someone I knew I cd trust. :)
The credentials of the interviewees (which you don't see until the end) are impressive, but these days it's hard to trust college professors and Ph.D.s and such w/o knowing more about them.
The reviews on IMDB are pretty negative, but well worded and intelligent.
I wd have given it a higher rating b/c it's interesting, but it's dangerous.
Thought provoking, but a pretty dangerous movie. They certainly take a lot of leaps in their arguments to try to make their points. A good bit of slight-of-hand.
They also hit a lot of topics, concepts, scientific area/theories/ideas, use a cute story, animation, etc. It's hard to focus on one thing and when you try they're already on another point and you've only had time to understand their argument (and not examine it) before they've moved on.
Unfortunately, this probably had the opposite effect on me than what might be intended - I believed it less than they probably wanted. While their spiritual conclusions might be whacko, I'd like to know if their neurology had any merit b/c that cd be pretty interesting.
I wd love to see/read a response to this movie from someone I knew I cd trust. :)
The credentials of the interviewees (which you don't see until the end) are impressive, but these days it's hard to trust college professors and Ph.D.s and such w/o knowing more about them.
The reviews on IMDB are pretty negative, but well worded and intelligent.
I wd have given it a higher rating b/c it's interesting, but it's dangerous.
Marche de l'empereur, La (2005) - 3.5/5
Marche de l'empereur, La (2005)
Good movie. They do a good job of taking a relatively simple story and making it interesting. They don't force any of the cuteness and don't hold back any/much of the tragedy.
Good movie. They do a good job of taking a relatively simple story and making it interesting. They don't force any of the cuteness and don't hold back any/much of the tragedy.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Open Season (2006) - 2.5/5
Open Season (2006)
I can't really say too much about this. We watched it w/ our son and I was probably more interested in watching him than the movie. It definitely had some cute/funny parts, but over all I didn't think the story was that great... though I was distracted.
I was surprised to see (before it started) that it's rated PG. I think it deserved it b/c of the theme of hunting and all.
Anyway, it's decent, but there's better out there.
I can't really say too much about this. We watched it w/ our son and I was probably more interested in watching him than the movie. It definitely had some cute/funny parts, but over all I didn't think the story was that great... though I was distracted.
I was surprised to see (before it started) that it's rated PG. I think it deserved it b/c of the theme of hunting and all.
Anyway, it's decent, but there's better out there.
Just Like Heaven (2005) - 2/5
Just Like Heaven (2005)
Cute, but unoriginal, cliché, predictable, sappy, cheesy w/ sub-par acting, imo.
I get no joy in saying those things about it... kinda like watching the movie itself. :)
I thought this was "Far From Heaven" when I added it to my queue.
Cute, but unoriginal, cliché, predictable, sappy, cheesy w/ sub-par acting, imo.
I get no joy in saying those things about it... kinda like watching the movie itself. :)
I thought this was "Far From Heaven" when I added it to my queue.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Jésus de Montréal (1989) - 4.5/5
Jésus de Montréal (1989)
Great film. Only slightly dated too.
The premise is an actor is hired to put on a Passion play for a Catholic church. The priest has little faith himself and gives the actor free reign to hire who he wants and make any necessary changes to bring the play up to date.
The actors eventually feel the work is very significant and important.
Warning: one small scene of nudity - you'll know when.
SPOILERS:
The priest is admittedly a "bad" priest, but believes "a bad priest is still a priest" and won't give up his position despite his failings and discontentment. He believes a person "should live happily as long as possible." His only conviction seems to be that the Church serves the emotional needs of people who can't afford psychoanalysis or drugs elsewhere.
He is the modern Pharisee for the most part.
The "Jesus" character first gathers his followers starting w/ a single mother serving in a soup kitchen. She agrees to follow/support him and gives him a place to stay since "the son of man has no place to lie his head." We find out she's the priests mistress (adulterer) too.
Next he gathers other followers who are a group of misfits for various reasons resembling Jesus' followers.
The play is quite liberal and questions many of the claims of Jesus' life. The priest is worried about what his superiors will think and ultimately they try to shut down the play though the audiences/critics love it.
The actors all finally feel they are working on something meaningful and are more passionate about their "church" of acting. This includes a scene w/ one follower trying out for a "beer" commercial (which cdn't have been more blatant talking about how society "worships" beer and physical beauty, etc., but still great, that was the point).
Their insistance that she take her clothes off is such an insult in the Jesus character's "temple" that he has to over turn the tables and cleanse the house including whipping the "officials" w/ a whip of cords.
They go on w/ the play, but it is disrupted by security during the crucifixtion and thru an accident, the cross is knocked over and "Jesus" is hurt and taken to the hospital. His believers are somewhat scattered and there's little help amoung "His people" (St. Mark's hospital).
He begins to feel better and leaves though he starts his descent into the lower realms and darkness mentioning being forsaken by his father. He preaches to those standing idle underground being watched over by their master (and popular actor on a dard billboard for perfume).
He collapses and again those around him all scatter except for the two women. This time he's taken by Jews (the Jewish hospital) who care for his dead body. Ultimately, thru his death, others around the world are given life: a heart to an American, eyes to an Italian, etc.
This description may make the movie sound heavy handed and obvious, but I think they make it work well. The characters are good and their transformation is passionate. Early in the movie their attitude is literally "que sera sera" and by the end they are determined to continue w/ the work, establish an institution in their leader's memory and keep it free from defilment and compromise (though it is led by a clearly superficial lawyer - so great).
There are so many good scenes and shots in this movie that I think I'd have to watch it a few times to pick up on even more. Like a scene where they are all eating on the mountain and try to feed the guard who comes up. Just a part of a larger scene, but the details are great: the movement in the scenes (going up and down especially: stairs, escalators, buildings, etc.).
Great film. Only slightly dated too.
The premise is an actor is hired to put on a Passion play for a Catholic church. The priest has little faith himself and gives the actor free reign to hire who he wants and make any necessary changes to bring the play up to date.
The actors eventually feel the work is very significant and important.
Warning: one small scene of nudity - you'll know when.
SPOILERS:
The priest is admittedly a "bad" priest, but believes "a bad priest is still a priest" and won't give up his position despite his failings and discontentment. He believes a person "should live happily as long as possible." His only conviction seems to be that the Church serves the emotional needs of people who can't afford psychoanalysis or drugs elsewhere.
He is the modern Pharisee for the most part.
The "Jesus" character first gathers his followers starting w/ a single mother serving in a soup kitchen. She agrees to follow/support him and gives him a place to stay since "the son of man has no place to lie his head." We find out she's the priests mistress (adulterer) too.
Next he gathers other followers who are a group of misfits for various reasons resembling Jesus' followers.
The play is quite liberal and questions many of the claims of Jesus' life. The priest is worried about what his superiors will think and ultimately they try to shut down the play though the audiences/critics love it.
The actors all finally feel they are working on something meaningful and are more passionate about their "church" of acting. This includes a scene w/ one follower trying out for a "beer" commercial (which cdn't have been more blatant talking about how society "worships" beer and physical beauty, etc., but still great, that was the point).
Their insistance that she take her clothes off is such an insult in the Jesus character's "temple" that he has to over turn the tables and cleanse the house including whipping the "officials" w/ a whip of cords.
They go on w/ the play, but it is disrupted by security during the crucifixtion and thru an accident, the cross is knocked over and "Jesus" is hurt and taken to the hospital. His believers are somewhat scattered and there's little help amoung "His people" (St. Mark's hospital).
He begins to feel better and leaves though he starts his descent into the lower realms and darkness mentioning being forsaken by his father. He preaches to those standing idle underground being watched over by their master (and popular actor on a dard billboard for perfume).
He collapses and again those around him all scatter except for the two women. This time he's taken by Jews (the Jewish hospital) who care for his dead body. Ultimately, thru his death, others around the world are given life: a heart to an American, eyes to an Italian, etc.
This description may make the movie sound heavy handed and obvious, but I think they make it work well. The characters are good and their transformation is passionate. Early in the movie their attitude is literally "que sera sera" and by the end they are determined to continue w/ the work, establish an institution in their leader's memory and keep it free from defilment and compromise (though it is led by a clearly superficial lawyer - so great).
There are so many good scenes and shots in this movie that I think I'd have to watch it a few times to pick up on even more. Like a scene where they are all eating on the mountain and try to feed the guard who comes up. Just a part of a larger scene, but the details are great: the movement in the scenes (going up and down especially: stairs, escalators, buildings, etc.).
The Station Agent (2003) - 4/5
The Station Agent (2003)
Some semi-spoilers mixed in...
There's a lot of imagery in this movie especially revolving around trains which is an easy tie in. Fin is very much like a train: he dresses 'old fashion' and in black, he smokes, walks train tracks, doesn't speak hardly at all, very isolated, alone, no emotion or desire for interaction, etc.
He's content to live in solitude and even desires it. However, Joe, by his nature, insists on becoming his friend. His life is marked by service and human contact: he works a hot dog/ice cream/coffee stand and does that to serve his father (he's serving to serve). He forces his way into Fin's life and forces Olivia to come along to.
Olivia creates and nurtures but her life is a (train) wreck. She wants to help and it seems to provide for Fin in a way she can't for her son who died a couple years before. She sees Fin as someone to fill this role in her life as her son.
Joe's excitement and Olivia's motherliness eventually brings Fin out of his shell and converts him from a 'train watcher' to a 'people watcher.' He starts wearing clothes w/ some color, being interested in others and eventually smiles and cracks a joke.
He opens up only to find he gets hurt like he always feared. The resolution is not overwhelming or overly sappy, but well done and simple.
The acting is spot-on and the characters come thru instantly even if you don't know it at the time.
Some semi-spoilers mixed in...
There's a lot of imagery in this movie especially revolving around trains which is an easy tie in. Fin is very much like a train: he dresses 'old fashion' and in black, he smokes, walks train tracks, doesn't speak hardly at all, very isolated, alone, no emotion or desire for interaction, etc.
He's content to live in solitude and even desires it. However, Joe, by his nature, insists on becoming his friend. His life is marked by service and human contact: he works a hot dog/ice cream/coffee stand and does that to serve his father (he's serving to serve). He forces his way into Fin's life and forces Olivia to come along to.
Olivia creates and nurtures but her life is a (train) wreck. She wants to help and it seems to provide for Fin in a way she can't for her son who died a couple years before. She sees Fin as someone to fill this role in her life as her son.
Joe's excitement and Olivia's motherliness eventually brings Fin out of his shell and converts him from a 'train watcher' to a 'people watcher.' He starts wearing clothes w/ some color, being interested in others and eventually smiles and cracks a joke.
He opens up only to find he gets hurt like he always feared. The resolution is not overwhelming or overly sappy, but well done and simple.
The acting is spot-on and the characters come thru instantly even if you don't know it at the time.
Night at the Museum (2006) - 3/5
Night at the Museum (2006)
A good, light, fun movie that doesn't try to be too much. Owen Wilson stands out in a relatively small role. Robin Williams is pretty good too.
I think this movieis cute and wd probably be especially fun for kids, but I liked it too.
A good, light, fun movie that doesn't try to be too much. Owen Wilson stands out in a relatively small role. Robin Williams is pretty good too.
I think this movieis cute and wd probably be especially fun for kids, but I liked it too.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Unknown (2006) - 2/5
Unknown (2006)
I wanted to like this movie b/c it has so many things that appeal to me: I hadn't heard of it, good actors that I like, independent, low budget (at least that look'n'feel) and you are lost w/ the characters and learn as they do.
While I think the acting was good, I didn't think the characters were fleshed out. It seemed like they tried, but I didn't buy it. Maybe b/c I cdn't rely on anything b/c their memories and development were questionable (more in spoilers).
The people in the warehouse seemed to be 'going thru the motions' and not really getting anywhere and the character development wasn't effective.
The outside plot was unclear and also felt like fluff or 'killing time' until they cd get to the end and resolve things.
There's a lot going for this,but ultimately I think it lacked heart and soul required for this kinda thing. Maybe it was the result of a quick shooting schedule since it is an indie type thing.
SPOILERS
By the end, there were too many twists piled up on top of each other in rapid succession that it kinda lost the effect. He's a good guy, no a bad guy, no an undercover cop, no a bad undercover cop, w/ a plot w/ the other guy's wife, no ultimate a good guy, huh?
I wanted to like this movie b/c it has so many things that appeal to me: I hadn't heard of it, good actors that I like, independent, low budget (at least that look'n'feel) and you are lost w/ the characters and learn as they do.
While I think the acting was good, I didn't think the characters were fleshed out. It seemed like they tried, but I didn't buy it. Maybe b/c I cdn't rely on anything b/c their memories and development were questionable (more in spoilers).
The people in the warehouse seemed to be 'going thru the motions' and not really getting anywhere and the character development wasn't effective.
The outside plot was unclear and also felt like fluff or 'killing time' until they cd get to the end and resolve things.
There's a lot going for this,but ultimately I think it lacked heart and soul required for this kinda thing. Maybe it was the result of a quick shooting schedule since it is an indie type thing.
SPOILERS
By the end, there were too many twists piled up on top of each other in rapid succession that it kinda lost the effect. He's a good guy, no a bad guy, no an undercover cop, no a bad undercover cop, w/ a plot w/ the other guy's wife, no ultimate a good guy, huh?
Monday, February 05, 2007
Elizabethtown (2005) - 3/5
Elizabethtown (2005)
I heard this movie compared to "Garden State" and while I can see that, I think "Garden State" is considerably better. I think the tone is more consistent in "GS" and the acting is better also.
Orlando Bloom doesn't pull it off. I don't think he can 'do' emotion: the scenes requiring any type of bigger emotions from him fell pretty flat and akward.
It didn't seem like this movie cd decide if it wanted to be serious, funny, introspective, etc. In the end, that means it's none more often than not.
Kirsten Dunst was particularly good to me. I normally don't think too much of her, but she did a good job.
SPOILERS:
The best part of this movie was the last ~30 mins where he's driving across country w/ his dad's urn. The tone completely changes IMO and for the better. Invoking images of him w/ his dad and their love (which is missed for the rest of the movie not knowing what kind of relationship they had...which may be the point???) and the beauty of the time alone despite the death of one of them. :)
The 'fiasco' of the shoe isn't believable. No company wd put so much behind one person's creation who is just a guy w/a cubby hole of a desk. If they did, they wdn't have made it that far. Also, they wd have done test marketing, etc. It just distracted that it was so unbelievable.
Also, the mom's 'conversion' near the end from high-strung widow to practially stand-up comic was awkward.
I heard this movie compared to "Garden State" and while I can see that, I think "Garden State" is considerably better. I think the tone is more consistent in "GS" and the acting is better also.
Orlando Bloom doesn't pull it off. I don't think he can 'do' emotion: the scenes requiring any type of bigger emotions from him fell pretty flat and akward.
It didn't seem like this movie cd decide if it wanted to be serious, funny, introspective, etc. In the end, that means it's none more often than not.
Kirsten Dunst was particularly good to me. I normally don't think too much of her, but she did a good job.
SPOILERS:
The best part of this movie was the last ~30 mins where he's driving across country w/ his dad's urn. The tone completely changes IMO and for the better. Invoking images of him w/ his dad and their love (which is missed for the rest of the movie not knowing what kind of relationship they had...which may be the point???) and the beauty of the time alone despite the death of one of them. :)
The 'fiasco' of the shoe isn't believable. No company wd put so much behind one person's creation who is just a guy w/a cubby hole of a desk. If they did, they wdn't have made it that far. Also, they wd have done test marketing, etc. It just distracted that it was so unbelievable.
Also, the mom's 'conversion' near the end from high-strung widow to practially stand-up comic was awkward.
The Aviator (2004) - 4/5
The Aviator (2004)
Great acting. Blanchett, Alda and DiCaprio are at their best in my opinion. Unfortunately, it's hard for me to see DiCaprio as anything other than a babyface, but he came close and everything else was very impressive: his expressions, stance and mannerisms, voice (though maybe a little thin), etc. He was as good as he cd be and much better than most.
I loved the way Scorsese modeled the filming of the periods as they wd have looked during those years. Some scenes have the 'off' coloring as it wd have been filmed back then. Great device.
I wdn't say this movie is very 'informative' or gives a lot of answers yet it isn't close to a documentary either. It's a great blend of truth and artistic interpretation/storytelling as a biopic probably sd be.
I'm intrigued by Hughes so I enjoyed it on that level too.
And while I'd love to learn more about what happened after the movies timeline, I've seen enough on it to know that we don't really know it all clearly. So I'm glad they didn't even get into it.
Great acting. Blanchett, Alda and DiCaprio are at their best in my opinion. Unfortunately, it's hard for me to see DiCaprio as anything other than a babyface, but he came close and everything else was very impressive: his expressions, stance and mannerisms, voice (though maybe a little thin), etc. He was as good as he cd be and much better than most.
I loved the way Scorsese modeled the filming of the periods as they wd have looked during those years. Some scenes have the 'off' coloring as it wd have been filmed back then. Great device.
I wdn't say this movie is very 'informative' or gives a lot of answers yet it isn't close to a documentary either. It's a great blend of truth and artistic interpretation/storytelling as a biopic probably sd be.
I'm intrigued by Hughes so I enjoyed it on that level too.
And while I'd love to learn more about what happened after the movies timeline, I've seen enough on it to know that we don't really know it all clearly. So I'm glad they didn't even get into it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
