Oh, David O. Russell, you certainly know how to direct a film. He does, you know. If you've seen "I Heart Huckabees" or "Three Kings" then you should agree. I just saw "The Fighter", Russell's take on the old standby of a genre, the boxing film, and now witnessing his masterful directorial skills has given me what us completely heterosexual men call a "man crush" and an "urge to have sex with him". Russell stands out as he always seems to have stood out, rather than taking the old formula and renaming it, he takes it, gives it a little spit shine, moves a few parts around, adds a few new parts, takes out some old pieces, and serves it all up with the best work from a collective cast you've seen all year.
I'll focus mainly on the work of the actors, but first I need to commend Russell himself. He presents parts of the movie in a very meta-documentary fashion, with the camera following a film crew following Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) and his family rather than just follow them around on the shaky handicam itself, a style that seems to have taken a predominately cliched seat in the film and television world as of late. It's particularly effective once the action moves to the ring and the camera takes on the unique scratchy and unusually bright filter that is unique to televised pay-per-view, it's simple but just perfect, like a great bowl of soup. Like clam chowder. Like a great big bowl of New England clam chowder.
This movie takes place in New England (nailed the transition!). Lowell, Massachusetts to be exact, and everything about that fact is embraced and presented in the most beautifully poignant ways that a economically defunct small town can be presented. The setting we are introduced to in the opening credit sequence are about as gritty and real as a non-simulated plate of grits (now that's gritty and real... fuck all of you). The neighborhood in which our protagonist lives is one of obvious poverty and suffers from a huge case of being located in Massachusetts. Micky's family, who provide more than sufficient antagonism for him through the course of the movie is the biggest bundle of white trash you'll see outside of a KKK yard sale.
It's made clear right away that the family is dysfunctional. Not only do the eight sisters (that's an estimation, if I had to look at them long enough to count them my genitals would shrivel until they resembled a mummy's uvula) have difficulty explaining who came from which father, but their hair alone gives some indication of the early nineties hellhole from which they had emerged. Melissa Leo plays the matriarchal tycoon of the family. Given the jumbled accounts of her past (she had half of her brood by one man and then remarried to the man who would soon father Micky and the other half of the family... or something) she clearly either had a condom allergy, or was a bit of a whore. She also plays a royal class bitch better than any actress I've seen in a long time. It's a phenomenal performance, but to say it stands out in this movie is like saying Peter stood out amongst the disciples, or that George stood out amongst the Beatles. She's a team player in a group that is all talent and who all lend a small part to a project that is made better as a result, it's their collective effort and unique contributions that make the final result so memorable (Ringo was the goofy one, Judas was the betrayish one).
That being said, let's move on to the real meat of this movie, the three people who make "The Fighter" what it is, Mark Wahlberg, Amy Adams, and Christian "Motherfucking" Bale.
Mark Wahlberg plays Micky Ward, the fighter who has never really broken into the big leagues and as of yet has not managed to follow in the shadow of his big brother, who's claim to fame is once knocking down Sugar Ray Leonard in a fight. The problem is that Micky's family is the worst. Not the worst family, the worst thing ever. They are comically disfunctional, with all the sisters siding with the mom, the mom favoring the older brother, Dicky, over Micky, and Micky's father constantly trying and failing to get a voice of authority in the family over the mother. After a documentary about crack addiction centers its focus around his brother and destroys his family's reputation, Micky decides to fight and push himself out of the small times with a possible shot at a title belt. He, like his father, is repressed by his bitch of a mother, might as well start calling her Alice now to put a name to the evil, evil face.
Amy Adams plays Charlene, Micky's girlfriend who has twice the sass of a Tyler Perry movie and triple the appeal. She's the only one who supports Micky unselfishly and she defends him the only way she knows how, with a no-nonsense, sharp-witted bitchy attitude. She's badass who actually has one of the better fight scenes in the movie. Her confrontation with Dicky Eklund is the most emotionally powerful scenes of this past year in cinema.
And with the mention of Dicky Eklund I find myself unable to put it off any longer, I must talk about the shining diamond of a presence in this film that is Christian "Motherfucking" Bale. He plays Dicky Eklund, Micky's older brother. Micky idolizes him, which poses the central problem in the film, being that Micky finds it almost impossible to cut his brother out of his life even after Dicky collapses under rampant drug use. Bale masterfully portrays a character who means well and wants to stay loyal and helpful to his family, but can't help but let his own selfish needs interfere. The thick Bostonian accent and wide, glassy-eyed stare are the icing on this orgasm cake of a performance, and in case I haven't made it clear yet, my money's on him for the Oscar this year for Best Supporting Actor. To portray an antagonist who desperately means well, but can't shake his own demons.
The great thing about "The Fighter" is that the main fight isn't Micky Ward's struggle to the top, but rather the struggle to avoid his dysfunctional family from keeping him down while not wanting to compromise his love for them. "The Fighter" is a true cinematic triumph this year and sure to become a classic. I implore you to seek out and watch this film, I promise you won't want it to end.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Alex: True Grit (2010)
True Girt is another example of why movie trailers are not to be trusted. Everything about the True Grit trailer pointed to it being the best film of the year. COEN BROTHERS. WESTERN. JEFF BRIDGES. MATT DAMON. ADORABLE GIRL. JOHNY FUCKING CASH. My friends and I, whose opinions appear in this very space, were positively a tizzy about the movie and the sheer brilliance that was going to be shoved down our eyeholes. Sadly this was not to be.
The movie focuses on Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld), a 14-year-old girl looking to avenge the death of her father. The story begins with Ross arriving in a rural western town to settle the affairs of her family, and to begin her personal vendetta against her father’s murderer, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). Ross is a fast-talking, intelligent girl able to outwit the adults who insist she is too young to go out into the country hunt a man wanted across the states and territories of what was at the time the Southwest. To help in her quest she enlists U.S. Marshall Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) a ruthless old man and drunkard. In town she meets Texas Ranger Laboeuf (Matt Damon) who is looking to bring Cheney to justice for a crime he committed in Texas. The three set out into the impossibly vast country looking for the criminal.
And if you’ve seen any movie, ever, you should be able to piece together what happens next. The three bicker. Laboeuf leaves. He gets in trouble and Ross and Cogburn save him. Cogburn reveals that he really is an old drunk. Laboeuf leaves again. Every scene telegraphs what is about to happen and the entire script fits into the simplest plot the Coen Brothers have ever put to film. There is no discussion of morality or depth to the story like in the duo’s previous western, No Country for Old Men. The three heroes set off to catch the bad guy, and then, 90 minutes later, they do.
The simple nature of the plot, however, does not make the movie bad. Bridges and Damon give excellent performances and Steinfeld stands with them unflinchingly. The dialogue is the best you will hear this year outside of the Social Network. The threesome throw complex zingers at one another for the duration of the movie and the chemistry between them, particularly Bridges and Steinfeld, is entertaining to watch. The Coen Brothers captured the setting with respect and admiration of the vastness of the West. Other westerns and Red Dead Redemption glorify sleeping out under the stars and getting everywhere by horse back, but True Grit accurately captures the anxiety that stems from the fact that the only law in the country is the gun you have and your ability to shoot it straight. The compete isolation that the characters feel after they left town is shown by the actors and captured the directors. I find that world absolutely terrifying, but that’s only because I’m a wimp. I would not last a day in the Wild West.
Sam said it best on facebook. “True Grit is a very good movie, a great Western, and a mediocre Coen Brothers film.” If you want to spend your 10 bucks on an enjoyable movie with great performances go see True Grit. But the fact is that, even though it could have been, and even though I wanted it to be, True Grit is not the best film of the year.
The movie focuses on Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld), a 14-year-old girl looking to avenge the death of her father. The story begins with Ross arriving in a rural western town to settle the affairs of her family, and to begin her personal vendetta against her father’s murderer, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). Ross is a fast-talking, intelligent girl able to outwit the adults who insist she is too young to go out into the country hunt a man wanted across the states and territories of what was at the time the Southwest. To help in her quest she enlists U.S. Marshall Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) a ruthless old man and drunkard. In town she meets Texas Ranger Laboeuf (Matt Damon) who is looking to bring Cheney to justice for a crime he committed in Texas. The three set out into the impossibly vast country looking for the criminal.
And if you’ve seen any movie, ever, you should be able to piece together what happens next. The three bicker. Laboeuf leaves. He gets in trouble and Ross and Cogburn save him. Cogburn reveals that he really is an old drunk. Laboeuf leaves again. Every scene telegraphs what is about to happen and the entire script fits into the simplest plot the Coen Brothers have ever put to film. There is no discussion of morality or depth to the story like in the duo’s previous western, No Country for Old Men. The three heroes set off to catch the bad guy, and then, 90 minutes later, they do.
The simple nature of the plot, however, does not make the movie bad. Bridges and Damon give excellent performances and Steinfeld stands with them unflinchingly. The dialogue is the best you will hear this year outside of the Social Network. The threesome throw complex zingers at one another for the duration of the movie and the chemistry between them, particularly Bridges and Steinfeld, is entertaining to watch. The Coen Brothers captured the setting with respect and admiration of the vastness of the West. Other westerns and Red Dead Redemption glorify sleeping out under the stars and getting everywhere by horse back, but True Grit accurately captures the anxiety that stems from the fact that the only law in the country is the gun you have and your ability to shoot it straight. The compete isolation that the characters feel after they left town is shown by the actors and captured the directors. I find that world absolutely terrifying, but that’s only because I’m a wimp. I would not last a day in the Wild West.
Sam said it best on facebook. “True Grit is a very good movie, a great Western, and a mediocre Coen Brothers film.” If you want to spend your 10 bucks on an enjoyable movie with great performances go see True Grit. But the fact is that, even though it could have been, and even though I wanted it to be, True Grit is not the best film of the year.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Sam: Black Swan (2010)
“The Wrestler” was crap. It was a simple comeback movie used to be the comeback for a star (who should have stayed in obscurity) that relied on a very cheap archetype. It tugged on heartstrings in ways it knew would engender positive critic response. So, when I say Darren Aronofsky has made the best film of his career, it means he only marginally beat out “Requiem for a Dream” considering his only other films included “The Wrestler”, “The Fountain”, and “Pi”. He is hardly a seasoned director. However, in a time when people are taking risks in film for the sole purpose of seaming bold and artistically superior, Aronofsky takes a major risk that ends up being so fulfilling.
The story is so. An ingénue ballerina (Brilliant and Bulimic Natalie Portman) finally lands the role of her dreams as the Swan Queen (both white and evil black) in her company’s production of a re-envisioned Swan Lake. She soon meets a new ballerina from San Francisco who seems to be both friend and foe. She the embarks on a quest imparted on her by the ballet's director (Vincent Cassel) to become "Perfect". The pressure continues to build on Portman’s character Nina and it starts to manifest itself in slight mental slippages and finger rippages.She begins to feel intense physical and mental changes that seem to parallel the story of Swan Lake. She becomes both the black and white swan. Eventually, the story culminates with a desperate move on Nina’s behalf to keep Lily (Mila Kunis) from taking her role in the ballet’s premier.
So, where did Aronofsky go right? Well, as I mentioned before, Aronofsky takes a huge risk. He does this by setting his film in a world of mirrors. In fact, the ballet’s rehearsal rooms are covered wall to wall in mirrors. This presents the problem of not letting the camera be seen in the constant reflection. Even outside of the Lincoln Center location Aronofsky surrounds the actors with mirrors that seem to offer a visual of Nina’s confined dark side. He manages to never let the audience glimpse the camera, which poses the initial difficulty of whether he will use innovative camera placement or CGI reflections. Aronofsky uses both methods in very appropriate manners depending on each scenario and ends up with an almost two-hour film with a mirror in every single scene (no exaggeration). I applaud him for it.
The writing is not at a loss either. There is incredibly subtlety in the language, although some blatant and utterly laughable lines slip through the delicately weaved vale of dialogue. For example, the scene where Nina and her mother briefly argue about who was the more promising ballerina and Nina’s mother just slightly hints that Nina was an accident, revealing a whole layer of the mother’s character. But at other times, the provocative nature becomes simply too much and you are forced to watch silently well holding in gut-laughs (“Show me your black swan, Nina” and “Did you suck his cock?”). Other than that, the story was well put together and excellently spiced with ballet techno-babble (I still don’t know what a Coda is), and the ending didn’t rely on a canned twist that we’ve seen thousands of times before. I only wish more thrillers were so concise and elegant.
The acting is one thing that truly stood out in this film. Although I could sit here and type out a long winded paragraph on how great Natalie Portman was in this, I would rather like to focus on the supporting cast and say only this: Natalie Portman is able to act because of how smart she is. She truly understands human emotion and full psychological immersion. She is Nina. However, the film ultimately sparkles with the help of an impeccable supporting cast. Barbara Hershey as Nina’s mother is one of the best older female roles since the mother from “Carrie”. She is appropriately loving and creepy with a hint of abusive and neurotic. If anyone is to blame for this films critical success, it is the brilliant Ms. Hershey. Vincent Cassel never disappoints and this film is no exception. Mila Kunis is finally embraced as a full on sex symbol and thusly emerges as one of the sexiest Femme Fatales to grace the silver screen. Finally, there’s Winona Ryder. She’s excellent but gets so little screen time she never really gets noticed. If only someone would give her a leading role.
Some may consider the film disturbing. Well, that's because it is. I mean there are some pretty disgusting visuals that include a woman stabbing herself in the face and Natalie Portman's feet becoming webbed. Also, her toenail cracks clean in half. This doesn't retrospectively hurt the film and only improves the dark motif of transformation. Also, the awesome lesbian sex scene makes up for all of it.
Ultimately, this uber creepy thriller makes you leave the theater checking your fingers for hangnails, hoping to god you won’t find one. And that’s exactly what this kind of movie should do. This beautiful psycho thriller simply puts you in the dark, underground world of ballerinas and gives you irrational fears (like your kneecaps inverting) because of how astonishingly real it seems, despite some heavily outlandish content. Aronofsky took his gritty side of film making and put it to some good use. Instead of being unnecessary like “The Wrestler” (which could have been easily polished into a Hollywood cookie cutter piece) he used basic but uncomfortably close shots and a cheap camera to ensnare the audience in what would otherwise be a run-of-the-mill, twist-based bowl of swan excrement. One final statement: This movie may have almost been "perfect" but I much rather preferred the ballet scene in "Top Secret!"
The story is so. An ingénue ballerina (Brilliant and Bulimic Natalie Portman) finally lands the role of her dreams as the Swan Queen (both white and evil black) in her company’s production of a re-envisioned Swan Lake. She soon meets a new ballerina from San Francisco who seems to be both friend and foe. She the embarks on a quest imparted on her by the ballet's director (Vincent Cassel) to become "Perfect". The pressure continues to build on Portman’s character Nina and it starts to manifest itself in slight mental slippages and finger rippages.She begins to feel intense physical and mental changes that seem to parallel the story of Swan Lake. She becomes both the black and white swan. Eventually, the story culminates with a desperate move on Nina’s behalf to keep Lily (Mila Kunis) from taking her role in the ballet’s premier.
So, where did Aronofsky go right? Well, as I mentioned before, Aronofsky takes a huge risk. He does this by setting his film in a world of mirrors. In fact, the ballet’s rehearsal rooms are covered wall to wall in mirrors. This presents the problem of not letting the camera be seen in the constant reflection. Even outside of the Lincoln Center location Aronofsky surrounds the actors with mirrors that seem to offer a visual of Nina’s confined dark side. He manages to never let the audience glimpse the camera, which poses the initial difficulty of whether he will use innovative camera placement or CGI reflections. Aronofsky uses both methods in very appropriate manners depending on each scenario and ends up with an almost two-hour film with a mirror in every single scene (no exaggeration). I applaud him for it.
The writing is not at a loss either. There is incredibly subtlety in the language, although some blatant and utterly laughable lines slip through the delicately weaved vale of dialogue. For example, the scene where Nina and her mother briefly argue about who was the more promising ballerina and Nina’s mother just slightly hints that Nina was an accident, revealing a whole layer of the mother’s character. But at other times, the provocative nature becomes simply too much and you are forced to watch silently well holding in gut-laughs (“Show me your black swan, Nina” and “Did you suck his cock?”). Other than that, the story was well put together and excellently spiced with ballet techno-babble (I still don’t know what a Coda is), and the ending didn’t rely on a canned twist that we’ve seen thousands of times before. I only wish more thrillers were so concise and elegant.
The acting is one thing that truly stood out in this film. Although I could sit here and type out a long winded paragraph on how great Natalie Portman was in this, I would rather like to focus on the supporting cast and say only this: Natalie Portman is able to act because of how smart she is. She truly understands human emotion and full psychological immersion. She is Nina. However, the film ultimately sparkles with the help of an impeccable supporting cast. Barbara Hershey as Nina’s mother is one of the best older female roles since the mother from “Carrie”. She is appropriately loving and creepy with a hint of abusive and neurotic. If anyone is to blame for this films critical success, it is the brilliant Ms. Hershey. Vincent Cassel never disappoints and this film is no exception. Mila Kunis is finally embraced as a full on sex symbol and thusly emerges as one of the sexiest Femme Fatales to grace the silver screen. Finally, there’s Winona Ryder. She’s excellent but gets so little screen time she never really gets noticed. If only someone would give her a leading role.
Some may consider the film disturbing. Well, that's because it is. I mean there are some pretty disgusting visuals that include a woman stabbing herself in the face and Natalie Portman's feet becoming webbed. Also, her toenail cracks clean in half. This doesn't retrospectively hurt the film and only improves the dark motif of transformation. Also, the awesome lesbian sex scene makes up for all of it.
Ultimately, this uber creepy thriller makes you leave the theater checking your fingers for hangnails, hoping to god you won’t find one. And that’s exactly what this kind of movie should do. This beautiful psycho thriller simply puts you in the dark, underground world of ballerinas and gives you irrational fears (like your kneecaps inverting) because of how astonishingly real it seems, despite some heavily outlandish content. Aronofsky took his gritty side of film making and put it to some good use. Instead of being unnecessary like “The Wrestler” (which could have been easily polished into a Hollywood cookie cutter piece) he used basic but uncomfortably close shots and a cheap camera to ensnare the audience in what would otherwise be a run-of-the-mill, twist-based bowl of swan excrement. One final statement: This movie may have almost been "perfect" but I much rather preferred the ballet scene in "Top Secret!"
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Introducing: Diane
A couple weeks ago we said hello to Emily as she became the newest writer for Any Old Film. But then, in a truly Shyamalanian twist she never showed up. It was like she didn't even exist. Or was dead. No word yet on whether or not she still plans on writing anything... or apologizing for being a lying liar who might possibly be dead in a dumpster somewhere.
In the meantime, we can bid a hearty welcome to our newest newcomer, Diane. Diane approached me with some review ideas already in hand and I just couldn't turn them down. I know she'll produce some great material and I can't wait to read it. In fact, you can expect her first review to be put up sometime next week. Diane, welcome aboard, I can't tell you how glad we are to have you, and like with all the other newcomers, I have to warn you to stay away from Sam, we keep him on a short leash... literally. It's so he doesn't bite anyone, so just stay away from his corner.
In the meantime, we can bid a hearty welcome to our newest newcomer, Diane. Diane approached me with some review ideas already in hand and I just couldn't turn them down. I know she'll produce some great material and I can't wait to read it. In fact, you can expect her first review to be put up sometime next week. Diane, welcome aboard, I can't tell you how glad we are to have you, and like with all the other newcomers, I have to warn you to stay away from Sam, we keep him on a short leash... literally. It's so he doesn't bite anyone, so just stay away from his corner.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Marcus: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
I've read all the Harry Potter books and seen the movies but I want to say right away that I'm not a fan. It's not that I dislike the series, I'm simply impartial. I read each book exactly once, and I can't even remember Richard Harris' face without looking up a picture from the first two movies (he was the original Dumbledore). I don't own any Harry Potter fan gear or merchandise, and I will lose almost every game of Harry Potter Trivial Pursuit that I take part in. I've merely gone with the flow on this cultural phenomenon, I haven't studied the minutiae of the mythos, and I have no regrets about this. I also believe this allows me to write a review that is relatively unbiased, let's see how it goes.
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1" is quite different from all the other movies in the franchise. An important thing to remember about making any movie is knowing what the intended audience is going to like. For example, fans of Transformers love action, explosions, cool CGI effects, and shitty writing. Twilight fans are much easier to please because they don't even need the action, explosions, or cool CGI effects. Harry Potter fans love the whimsical magic, the diverse characters, the escapist fantasies and momentary release from the realms of reality. It's fun to imagine a world like that of Harry Potter, where you're free to turn invisible or dissaparate on a whim or totally do it with a Death Eater.
My point is that, what I think Harry Potter fans are less inclined to, and paradoxically what I think this movie succeeds best at, is technical mastery of cinematography. The camera work in this movie is superb. The settings are gorgeous, and I mean the natural settings, not even including the ones with giant chambers and impossibly constructed ramshackle shacks. The outdoor shots could be assembled into a well compiled montage of reasons to visit Britain, even at its gloomiest. At this point, I won't be surprised if the movie gets an Oscar for cinematography, or at least a nomination. But the real shame about this is I feel the effort will be lost on most fans. Obviously they expect a good movie, but the work here goes so far beyond simply showing the spells and creatures and villains, and yet I feel the appreciation will be lost amongst many, for the major issue I will now address.
In comparison to all the Harry Potter movies that have come before it, Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is really uneventful. It's a shame because some people may say it's boring, but there's a distinction to be made. It's an interesting movie, a lot of important events happen. But a lot, and I do mean A LOT of the movie is made up of glorious scenery shots and pans and blocks of heavy dialogue with minimal action that just aren't what the Potter fan base is all about. The books were great because they allowed so much freedom of imagination, to picture for ourselves the world as we wanted. Now that we're being shown the world, there's nothing else for us to imagine, and because this movie is really lacking in action packed fight scenes, especially throughout the middle, all we can do is sit and watch them talk in tents or shacks or old houses. They're filling in the pictures, essentially doing for us what was the best part of reading the books.
The thing I do appreciate is that they do a bloody good job with the visuals, the setting, the locations, the mood. But no matter how well it's done, people are always going to prefer the image they originally had in their heads. That being the case, a lot of the movie can come off slow, which again is necessary to set up the cinematic orgasm that is sure to be Part 2. But I feel that this movie could never be a total hit because it doesn't have action, and it needs to compensate for that with other visuals. It's tough for me to say because this movie is executed so well, and I know it's going to be hugely successful, and that many people would disagree with this opinion. But it's reasons like this I will always be a "the book was better guy," because no matter how close a movie comes in quality (and Harry Potter gets about as close as they come), you do the fans a disservice by asserting your visual imaginings over theirs, and that's never a good thing.
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1" is quite different from all the other movies in the franchise. An important thing to remember about making any movie is knowing what the intended audience is going to like. For example, fans of Transformers love action, explosions, cool CGI effects, and shitty writing. Twilight fans are much easier to please because they don't even need the action, explosions, or cool CGI effects. Harry Potter fans love the whimsical magic, the diverse characters, the escapist fantasies and momentary release from the realms of reality. It's fun to imagine a world like that of Harry Potter, where you're free to turn invisible or dissaparate on a whim or totally do it with a Death Eater.
My point is that, what I think Harry Potter fans are less inclined to, and paradoxically what I think this movie succeeds best at, is technical mastery of cinematography. The camera work in this movie is superb. The settings are gorgeous, and I mean the natural settings, not even including the ones with giant chambers and impossibly constructed ramshackle shacks. The outdoor shots could be assembled into a well compiled montage of reasons to visit Britain, even at its gloomiest. At this point, I won't be surprised if the movie gets an Oscar for cinematography, or at least a nomination. But the real shame about this is I feel the effort will be lost on most fans. Obviously they expect a good movie, but the work here goes so far beyond simply showing the spells and creatures and villains, and yet I feel the appreciation will be lost amongst many, for the major issue I will now address.
In comparison to all the Harry Potter movies that have come before it, Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is really uneventful. It's a shame because some people may say it's boring, but there's a distinction to be made. It's an interesting movie, a lot of important events happen. But a lot, and I do mean A LOT of the movie is made up of glorious scenery shots and pans and blocks of heavy dialogue with minimal action that just aren't what the Potter fan base is all about. The books were great because they allowed so much freedom of imagination, to picture for ourselves the world as we wanted. Now that we're being shown the world, there's nothing else for us to imagine, and because this movie is really lacking in action packed fight scenes, especially throughout the middle, all we can do is sit and watch them talk in tents or shacks or old houses. They're filling in the pictures, essentially doing for us what was the best part of reading the books.
The thing I do appreciate is that they do a bloody good job with the visuals, the setting, the locations, the mood. But no matter how well it's done, people are always going to prefer the image they originally had in their heads. That being the case, a lot of the movie can come off slow, which again is necessary to set up the cinematic orgasm that is sure to be Part 2. But I feel that this movie could never be a total hit because it doesn't have action, and it needs to compensate for that with other visuals. It's tough for me to say because this movie is executed so well, and I know it's going to be hugely successful, and that many people would disagree with this opinion. But it's reasons like this I will always be a "the book was better guy," because no matter how close a movie comes in quality (and Harry Potter gets about as close as they come), you do the fans a disservice by asserting your visual imaginings over theirs, and that's never a good thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)