Cinemascope
-
Posts
5,161 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Cinemascope
-
-
Well I was at a loss of what you meant by 'now'.
On second thought, never mind the whole thing... let's let others rant, too.
-
I'm not sure if I know what you mean. The look of Spartacus is very different from that of Lolita or Barry Lyndon.
-
There were a few shots in the movie when he looked a bit like Schwarzenegger, I thought (the facial expression).
-
Oddly enough, the problem in places like the Castro isn't even talking during the movie, but laughing in the wrong places and for the wrong reasons... like the reader who wrote the letter about people laughing hysterically because someone in a movie referred to the U.S. having 48 states... even though the U.S. did have only 48 states when the movie had been made!
-
Well, for what it's worth, Godfather lenser Gordon Willis is widely considered the most influential cinematographer in America during the 70's, and was called "the prince of darkness" by some colleagues for the way he used underexposure for artistic purposes.
Perhaps because his style has so often been copied since then, it may not seem so radical to a lot of people these days.
-
No clue. Maybe they are now expecting old movies to be digitally updated to make everything up to date with 2007?
Really, it boggles the mind.
-
Why, thank you
-
Well first of all visually it has a very unique look, thanks to Gordon Willis cinematography, which I guess has been copied often enough since then, but which at the time I believe was something people hadn't seen before.... Nino Rota's music is very memorable and moving... the performances are also very memorable.
But most important, Coppola managed to give a theme to the movie that arguably wasn't there in the novel. And even more breathtakingly, Coppola repeated the theme in Godfather, Part II which is a counterpoint and criticism of the earlier theme.
At its heart, a lot of people would tell you that The Godfather isn't about gangsters, but about the most extreme effects of capitalism on families... which is why the sequel is, in many people's opinion, a far superior movie than the first one. It offers both a main premise and a direct counter-point.
-
Well I didn't get all the details, but it sounds to me someone's been misinformed!
-
Tobacco lobby won't let it happen, I'm sure.
-
Couple of years and he'll be out of a job and moving out of the White House...
-
I don't know if this would help at all, but before The Godfather was released, most gangster movies were, well, very different... like Scarface (1932), Public Enemy, Little Caesar, that kind of stuff... So Coppola's style was different from what people had grown used to, and was very different both in its look and its music.
Again, not sure if you can imagine how different and fresh this movie seemed to most people when first released, in ways that many felt rose above the somewhat trashy pulp novel Puzo originally wrote....
-
Please don't be offended for asking but, what is your 1st language, if other than English? Parlez-vous francaise?
-
Just edited the last post to include a link to Roger Ebert's 4-star review of 2001: A Space Odyssey. I won't post a link to his review of Clockwork Orange because he didn't like it, so you won't want to read that, I guess. It does, however, show that the same critic may respond favorably to one Kubrick movie and negatively to another one, made just a few years later.
-
Sometimes it's natural for one person not to "care for" a movie that either has earned a lot of critical praise or that is hugely popular. The Godfather happens to be the #1 movie in people's votes on imdb.com.
Does that mean you're wrong and everybody else is right? No, it just means different people react differently to some movies.
There's also critics who have given very positive reviews to most of Kubrick's movies. Wanna read some of them? I can post some links....
Here's a 4-star review of 2001: A Space Odyssey
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19680412/REVIEWS/804120301/1023
-
Perhaps because of the way you worded it. Instead of giving your opinion of Kael or not responding to Dewey's post at all, you chose to point out to him that she is an awful critic who may be an interesting writer.
Dewey gave one opinion, other people have different opinions. Where's the attack?
That's right, there's no "attack" -- no reason to get offended!
-
I wish I hadn't missed it, musically speaking it was a great century!!!
-
Dewey -- nothing that I said in my post that soooooo offended you was an attack against you... it was just an opinion that was different than yours.
Why should it bother you soooo much if someone happens to disagree with you? And aren't you hijacking the thread by starting all of these personal attacks, when I never attacked you -- simply disagreed with you?
-
Every single film fan that I have ever met. Maybe I am talking more about people that I have met rather than film critics because like I said, I don't read reviews.
Well, we were discussing critics rather than just ordinary word-of-mouth. Most critics would actually probably have good things to say about the movies you say people say bad things about.
-
But who's... "people"???
No clue, but highly doubtful they were critics!
-
I didn't speak of anything "witty", I spoke about things meant to be catchy, or "quoteable"...
-
> She may not be everyone's cup of tea but Dewey
> certainly didn't deserve to get slammed by you for
> liking Kael.
But why -- OH WHY!!! -- would you assume that giving a counter-opinion is in any way, shape, or form, any kind of attack that Dewey should take personally? Just because I (or anybody else for that matter) happens to have the contrary view, doesn't mean it's an attack on Dewey!
Here's an excerpt that shows some of the criticism levied against Kael -- for those who are interested!
The coercive effect of Kael's technique was not simply contrarian, which might have had its praiseworthy aspects; "For Keeps" makes it clear, as Adler noted years ago, that this is a critic who brooks no contradiction and turns herself into a pretzel to stun the reader into agreement that a worthless film has moments that outshine, and outmerit, actual masterpieces, if for no better reason than that the film was made by one of the directors she routinely fawned over, like De Palma. When it suits her, Kael does a complete volte-face and fetishizes the transcendent artistry of De Sica's "Shoeshine," for example, or treats us to an extremely long, extremely ill-informed analysis of how things work in Hollywood to explain "why today's movies are so bad." It is, perhaps, the absence of any real sensibility rooted in any consistent method of analysis that makes Pauline Kael's collections of reviews the kinds of books I don't like having in my house. She's not a real voice but more like a suet of arbitrary, extemporized pronouncements. She is Gertrude Stein's Oakland; There's no there there.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/02/prose_and_cons_critics_on_kael.html
-
Well, if we use "catchy phrase" to include anything that might get used by the studios in their ads, you might actually find there is no shortage of catchy phrases:
(1) Remember to always supply the studios with mixed similes that sound profound, but say nothing
"As deeply poignant as it is extremely funny!" - Barbara Siegel (Entertainment Syndicate) on ?Moonlight and Valentino."
"Andy Garcia is as funny as he is sexy" - Jeanne Wolf (Jeanne Wolf's Hollywood) on "Steal Big, Steal Little."
(2) Remember to always supply the studios with "best of the year" quotes, even though it may be three or more months before the year's end
"The best date movie of the year!" - Ray Pride (New City) on "The Brothers McMullen," released Aug. 9.
"The best party movie of the year!" - Peter Travers (Rolling Stone) on "Unzipped," released Aug. 4.
(3) Remember to always supply the studios with recycled, brain-dead adverb/adjective combinations, especially using the word "entertaining"
"Robustly entertaining!" - Peter Travers (Rolling Stone) on "Federal Hill"
"Marvelously entertaining!" - Paul Wunder (WBAI radio) on "Rob Roy"
"Extremely entertaining!" - Paul Wunder (WBAI radio) on "Kicking and Screaming."
"Wildly entertaining!" - Joel Siegel (ABC-TV) on "Pocahontas"
"Highly entertaining!" - Ana Maria Bahiana (Screen International) on "Now and Then."
"Totally entertaining!" - Jeanne Wolf (Jeanne Wolf's Hollywood) on "Father of the Bride Part II."
"Terrifically entertaining!" - Jack Mathews (NY Newsday) on "Forget Paris."
"Infectiously entertaining!" - Barbara and Scott Siegel (Entertainment Syndicate) on "Outbreak"
"Thoroughly entertaining!" - Barbara and Scott Siegel (Entertainment Syndicate) on "Free Willy 2."
(4) Ditto No. 3, but substitute the word "funny" for "entertaining"
"Devilishly funny!" - Joanne Kaufman on "Shallow Grave"
"Hysterically funny!" - Jan Wahl on "Don Juan DeMarco"
"Enormously funny!" - Kenneth Turan on "Muriel's Wedding"
"Outrageously funny!" - Don Stotter (Entertainment Timeout Syndicate) on "Vampire in Brooklyn"
"Paynefully funny!" - Barbara and Scott Siegel (Entertainment Syndicate) on "Major Payne"
"Riotously funny!" - Jeffrey Lyons (Sneak Previews) on "Grumpier Old Men"
"Genuinely funny!" - Mike Roberts (Vancouver Province) on "The American President"
"Wickedly funny!" - Owen Glieberman (Entertainment Weekly) on "The Brady Bunch Movie"
"Laugh-out-loud funny!" - Owen Glieberman (Entertainment Weekly) on "Mighty Aphrodite"
(5) Remember to supply the studios with plenty of movies deemed "Must See!"
"A must-see for the whole family!" - Lisa Petrillo (WLPG-TV) on "Babe"
"A must-see four-star winner!" - Bobbie Wygant (KXAS) on "Waterworld"
"A must-see for children of all ages from 6-60!" - Paul Clinton (Turner Entertainment) on "Free Willy 2"
"Truly a must-see epic event!" - Barry Zavan (Channel America Network) on "Othello"
"A must-see!" - Elayne Blythe (Film Advisory Board) on "Indian in the Cupboard"
"A must-see!" - Ron Brewington (American Urban Radio) on "Congo"
"A must-see!" - Jeff Craig (60 Second Preview) on "Mute Witness"
"A must-see!" - Steve Arvin (UPI radio) on "Father of the Bride Part II"
-
Ah I should definitely look into that.
And the Oscar goes to.....
in General Discussions
Posted
Well it's the Oscar!