a haha you're funny!
I've gone to the trouble of coming up with a celebrity couple nickname for Gandalf and Galadriel: "Gandalfdriel." No thanks necessary.
The 1970s portion was amazing. Gritty, dirty, urban, and full of unmistakable film grain. Felt like I had been transported back to the glory days: French Connection, Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, etc.
Definitely a post TDK action film. There is much Joker in Silva, and the theme of "modern evil" fits well with the motif of an aging Bond. The subtext of blowback was particularly fascinating. The great scene where Silva shows the effects of the cyanide pill really drives that notion home, I think.
Surely one of the great debut efforts. Lumet's camera and the stark black and white photography are revealing. There are big emotions in this small room.
Rewatched. Was much more receptive to it this time. The visuals are really impressive, and I think for the most part it can proudly call itself a faithful adaptation. The only time it really goes astray for me is the changed ending, which is unforgivable.
Woooooo... Karen Allen's legs.
Criterion's recent release of this is outstanding. Packaging with a pop-out paper Godzilla? That's inspired.
Owen Wilson is marvelous. Dignan has this uncompromising optimism that is so endearing. I'd actually love to see Anderson do another "real world" film like this.
The script, like the brothers themselves, is at first awkward. Tries too hard to recapture the delicious deadpan and witty one-liners of Anderson/Wilson's previous work. But when the second act kicks into gear and the brothers begin to relax, the film just lets things happen. The quiet moments where no one speaks are when the film is best, such as when the brothers share a motorcycle on a nameless country road.
I'm not going to lie. I think this movie has some cool production design.
Not bad. Its only fault, really, is trying to juggle too many different storylines.
A bloated mess. Sprawls about from idea to idea without really addressing what happened in TDK. The fact that the film ignores the Joker's existence completely is most telling of this. Aesthetically, though, it was something to behold. Seeing wintry Gotham during daylight, its frozen streets and quiet snow flurries punctuated only by the occasional explosion, was endearingly reminiscent of "Batman Returns".
Did you take a piss break when they very clearly connected the events of the dark knight with this film? Did you know that sprawl is a passive position therefore one cannot "sprawl about". "The fact that the film ignores the Joker's existence completely is most telling of this." this is just a bad sentence.
I really don't see how they got from TDK to TDKR. Why would Batman retire if the Joker was still alive? Why didn't the counterterrorist powers provided by the the Dent Act prepare Gotham for Bane? They apparently have kept the Joker at bay for 8 years. Joker's fate is key, and it was lazily avoided.
Dafoe is great. The movie ok. Some beautiful landscape shots, but all of the different story elements didn't really work together. Man vs. nature, a broken family, corporate crimes... the film lacks focus. The little girl is one of the most charming child actors I've seen in a while, though.
The trailer misrepresents the movie. It is not a magical adventure through ancient Scotland; it is The Little Mermaid meets Brother Bears, which is as weird a combination as they come. The resulting mother/daughter buddy romp that was not up my alley. Merida herself, though, is an awesome badass of a heroine. Every second she and her fiery red luscious springs of goddess locks weren't on screen was a waste.
The script is definitely sloppy. Scott's direction, though, is masterful. It's a shame that he doesn't do sci-fi more often... but, then again, perhaps that's why his sci-fi films are so special.
Probably the least funny entry in the series, but also perhaps the most satisfying storytelling-wise. A love interest character is replaced entirely by the bromance of K and J, and it's a better film for it.
Quite effective in its scares and creepiness, but overall bit ridiculous. Ask the movie "why?" and it falls to pieces. For instance, while Radcliffe indeed gives a good performance, his character is essentially nothing more than a guinea pig for the audience. Why is he opening that door? Why is he going up those stairs? "Because the script told me to" would be the most likely answer.
Lots of "Lord of the Rings" here. Unlike Burton's "Alice in Wonderland," though, this film handles the high fantasy well. There's no heavy reliance on CGI--Snow White is grounded in grit.