Posted by moviePig on 01/10/43 11:34

Goro wrote:
> Watched a mess of movies on DVD this weekend, some of which I didn't
> finsih.
>
> ...
> MURDERBALL - kind of interesting but never really engaged me. Quad
> Rugby looks cool, but there was little discussion about the game
> itself, what strategies there are, why the US and Canada were so
> dominant, etc. Main chars were all dickheads so it's not like I had
> any sympathy/empathy for them.

Yeah, interesting and watchable... but I think the over-the-top reviews
(percentages, anyway) reflect a distorting caution re the handicapped.
The movie's truly fascinating point about the sport's violence and
intensity didn't warrant feature-length.


> BROTHERS GRIMM - I couldn't finish this. After about 30min or so, I
> just gave up. Some very cool visuals but it was just so infantile in
> many ways.

Didn't think it was *that* big a yawner. Otoh, I'll finish almost
anything...


> SERENITY - I'm not a Wil Whedon-ite. I liked Buffy ok, but there's
> something about Whedon's dialogue that just drives me batty. I never
> did really like FIREFLY, but i gave this a watch anyway. I liked the
> storyline, I liked the effects for the most part. Hated the
> characters, hated the humor, hated the dialogue. I lasted about 1hr.
> Since the parts i hated are what many cite as reasons to love it, this
> may say momre about me than the movie.

Never watched Firefly or Buffy to speak of, and liked SERENITY's humor.
(Liked its production "efficiency", too. Wish more movies were made
with narrative, rather than eye-candy, as the objective.)


> CINDERELLA MAN - MoviePig was pretty correct. it was a very good
> movie, i suppose, although ultimately a bit hollow. I don't llike
> Zelwagger but her performance was excellent, a totally transparent
> performance (where the character shows thru with little interference by
> the actor herself). Also amazing was Paul Giamatti, although he had
> too many "Now jsut kill this guy" lines during the ultimate fight.
> Crowe was very good if not entirely transparent and the char himself
> was drawn as too one-note to really resonate. It was engaging and
> enjoyable to watch; the emphasis on the family life and the effect of
> the depression was very powerful, but much breadth of story seemed cut
> off. Of course at a 2:20 orso running time, that's not surprisng. I
> liked it ok, didn't love it. I still rank CRYING FIST above this
> (although by now, you're likely tired of hearing about that).

Agreed about Giamatti, btw. CM and the likes of SIDEWAYS make him a
must-see (although I fear for his safety at Shyamalan's hands).


> And then I saw NARNIA at the beauteous Harkins CineCapri 70' screen. I
> agree with all who say it was beautiful but hollow. Kids movie. No
> subtley, no complexity, no real depth. Puerile and invasive score that
> blatantly told you how you were supposed to feel. Poor acting by the
> kids. Strange formality to everyone's acting kept everything at the
> surface level. No depth of story, aproblem with the source material,
> but still... Santa giving the kids weaponry was a bit... odd. The
> aggrandizement and near celebration of War was a bit odd as well.
> Granted it was a Just War, but still. White Witch was very good. Some
> of the visuals, esp. during the battle, were wonderful. I'm not likely
> to go see the next entries unless there's a new director.

Derek Janssen will disagree, and certainly with more authority... but my
sense is that the Narnia books don't contain the semi-grownup vittles
that the Potters do. Not sure a new director would be a solution (...to
a problem I haven't gone to see yet, admittedly).

--

/---------------------------\
| YOUR taste at work... |
| |
| http://www.moviepig.com |
\---------------------------/

[Back to original message]