Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
canaan wrote:i know its cheesy, not realistic, and all together a trainwreck, but man did i enjoy Lockout. Guy Pearce needs more work.
canaan wrote:i know its cheesy, not realistic, and all together a trainwreck, but man did i enjoy Lockout. Guy Pearce needs more work.
Eismann wrote:Bajo la Sal. Not bad. Atmosphere was better than story development.
Wrecked. Not bad. Adrien Brody crawling around for an hour and a half.
IrishEyes wrote:canaan wrote:i know its cheesy, not realistic, and all together a trainwreck, but man did i enjoy Lockout. Guy Pearce needs more work.
I freaking LOVED that movie. His sarcasm and one-liners had me cracking up the whole movie.
PensFanInDC wrote:Eismann wrote:Bajo la Sal. Not bad. Atmosphere was better than story development.
Wrecked. Not bad. Adrien Brody crawling around for an hour and a half.
We caught Wrecked on accident about 6 weeks ago. Agreed that it's not bad. Ending was decent. Brody did a good job in what is essentially Cast Away in the pacific northwest with a twist.
Tomas wrote:Anna Karenina:
Quite different from what I expected. I thought it will be a big-production movie (like e.g. Dr. Zhivago), and instead, it was a movie that was constantly played on various "theater stages." The cast moves to a different room - so a different stage opens. Somebody needs to leave - so they leave on a ladder to a backstage (and sometimes the story - especially when depicting something dark - continues in the backstage). They watch fireworks - so the roof of the theater opens. Sometimes as the scene goes on, the janitor is sweeping in front of the stage. Curtains, ropes, stage lights everywhere.
It was not a crazy-dream-sequence movie (like e.g. "Black Swan"), the story was quite linear, and reasonably powerful to eventually forget the staging oddity, but it took me at least 30-45 minutes to get adjusted. Definitely not my cup of tea.
On a positive note - the movie was still able to depict all the various shades of "love" quite powerfully. Jude Law as Karenin was probably the strongest actor. Keira Knightley in the lead role was a miscast, IMO.
Knowing the story before seeing the movie definitely helps.
LeopardLetang wrote:Tomas wrote:Anna Karenina:
Quite different from what I expected. I thought it will be a big-production movie (like e.g. Dr. Zhivago), and instead, it was a movie that was constantly played on various "theater stages." The cast moves to a different room - so a different stage opens. Somebody needs to leave - so they leave on a ladder to a backstage (and sometimes the story - especially when depicting something dark - continues in the backstage). They watch fireworks - so the roof of the theater opens. Sometimes as the scene goes on, the janitor is sweeping in front of the stage. Curtains, ropes, stage lights everywhere.
It was not a crazy-dream-sequence movie (like e.g. "Black Swan"), the story was quite linear, and reasonably powerful to eventually forget the staging oddity, but it took me at least 30-45 minutes to get adjusted. Definitely not my cup of tea.
On a positive note - the movie was still able to depict all the various shades of "love" quite powerfully. Jude Law as Karenin was probably the strongest actor. Keira Knightley in the lead role was a miscast, IMO.
Knowing the story before seeing the movie definitely helps.
was it filmed like dogville? still one of my favorite movies for some reason
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests