Updates...
Jun. 1st, 2006 10:57 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Let's start with the movies I've been watching:
The DaVinci Code... the book was a fun page-turner. The movie is a fun gumshoe-treasure hunt with appearances by murderous albinos. What's not to like?
To be honest, I'm puzzled by the critical drubbing this film has taken. Sure, it's talky. The main characters are ciphers. The plot follows the tried-n-true "when things get dull, bring in a man with a gun" formula. But that's the book! And for the record, I thought Tom Hanks did a very good job playing a gormless academic-detective who'd rather give a lecture than dodge murderous secret societies. He played the character as written. What's wrong with that?
I think sometimes critics confuse the character with the actor. If a character is well-written and interesting, they credit the actor's performance. In the DaVinci code, Ian Mckellan has got a lot of praise for playing an eccentric grail hunter. And you know what? watching the film, I didn't think it was one of Mackellan's best performances. The character was fun, and Mackellan obviously had some fun playing him - but masterwork it was not. I actually thought the actors playing the "boring' characters had a much harder job to do.
Capote - a slow-moving, brilliantly acted, and unsettling study of a writer more cold-blooded than the killers he interviewed. The film portrays Capote was a talented storyteller - he could gauge his audience and tell exactly the lie that would get him what he wanted. He was exacly the kind of pychopath society rewarded.
I've yet to read that corporate psychopath book that's come out, but it's a problem that interests me. In a business world that rewards ruthless efficiency, assertiveness, and "go-getters" who are willing to trample others to get to the top, it makes sense that high-functioning sociopaths have an innate advantage - they have no moral qualms to hold them back.
The film portrays the "artistic" world of New York writers in much the same light. Capote is a good liar and manipulator. He feels no qualms about invading the privacy of the dead and living. And not only is he willing to let people die in order to "get a good ending," but his publisher accepts and supports his goals.
X3You know, it's not as bad as it could have been. I thought everyone- including the director, did as best as they could with the shit handed them by the studio. But *my god* did that script suck. It was an enormous drop in quality from the first two films, and it showed.
And now the film's made so much $ that the studio's going to think everything's great. they'll probably make another X-Man movie in the same style and run the franchise completely into the ground.
Question: what was supposed to be shown after the end credits? The theatre I was in didn't show anything.
The DaVinci Code... the book was a fun page-turner. The movie is a fun gumshoe-treasure hunt with appearances by murderous albinos. What's not to like?
To be honest, I'm puzzled by the critical drubbing this film has taken. Sure, it's talky. The main characters are ciphers. The plot follows the tried-n-true "when things get dull, bring in a man with a gun" formula. But that's the book! And for the record, I thought Tom Hanks did a very good job playing a gormless academic-detective who'd rather give a lecture than dodge murderous secret societies. He played the character as written. What's wrong with that?
I think sometimes critics confuse the character with the actor. If a character is well-written and interesting, they credit the actor's performance. In the DaVinci code, Ian Mckellan has got a lot of praise for playing an eccentric grail hunter. And you know what? watching the film, I didn't think it was one of Mackellan's best performances. The character was fun, and Mackellan obviously had some fun playing him - but masterwork it was not. I actually thought the actors playing the "boring' characters had a much harder job to do.
Capote - a slow-moving, brilliantly acted, and unsettling study of a writer more cold-blooded than the killers he interviewed. The film portrays Capote was a talented storyteller - he could gauge his audience and tell exactly the lie that would get him what he wanted. He was exacly the kind of pychopath society rewarded.
I've yet to read that corporate psychopath book that's come out, but it's a problem that interests me. In a business world that rewards ruthless efficiency, assertiveness, and "go-getters" who are willing to trample others to get to the top, it makes sense that high-functioning sociopaths have an innate advantage - they have no moral qualms to hold them back.
The film portrays the "artistic" world of New York writers in much the same light. Capote is a good liar and manipulator. He feels no qualms about invading the privacy of the dead and living. And not only is he willing to let people die in order to "get a good ending," but his publisher accepts and supports his goals.
X3You know, it's not as bad as it could have been. I thought everyone- including the director, did as best as they could with the shit handed them by the studio. But *my god* did that script suck. It was an enormous drop in quality from the first two films, and it showed.
And now the film's made so much $ that the studio's going to think everything's great. they'll probably make another X-Man movie in the same style and run the franchise completely into the ground.
Question: what was supposed to be shown after the end credits? The theatre I was in didn't show anything.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-01 06:43 pm (UTC)And they do!!! It is much easier to play an eccentric character than one that is close to you. I thought Tom was a little flat but yes, he was playing an academician who was out of his league with the troubles. Thanks!I liked the movie too. I could see it again and I will so buy it on DVD.
SPOILER SPOILER
Date: 2006-06-01 06:53 pm (UTC)after the credits, we cut to the hospital room with Moira and the patient with no brain functions (shown via satellite to Xavier's class earlier). while Moira checks on the monitor, the patient moves and says "Moira" is what i thought was Patrick Stewart's voice. she looks at him indisbelief, says "Charles?!?!" and then the scene cuts out. which makes that earlier scene relevant and the information about passing consciousness over to another body useful...i guess.
seems to me there's another one in the works, which changes the way i think of this last one. still, if that's the case, we can only hope the script is light years better than this one.
Re: SPOILER SPOILER
Date: 2006-06-01 07:03 pm (UTC)hmmm...i got a little worked up
Date: 2006-06-01 08:13 pm (UTC)and where was Nightcrawler!?! i don't even mind that he wasn't in the film (okay...maybe i care a little), but they make a big deal of "6 X-Men v. Crap Load of Badass Mutants" and make no mention of their ally who is MIA. was he on the can somewhere? a prior engagement with the Munich circus? one line of dialogue is all i ask for. hell, just have someone ask, "where the hell is the other blue guy?"
and the (probably accurate) argument that producers thought Beast and Nightcrawler on-screen at the same time would confuse viewers makes me want to break things. sigh...all blue people look alike, i guess.
um...i think i might be done ranting now :\
Re: hmmm...i got a little worked up
Date: 2006-06-01 08:28 pm (UTC)I didn't really mind his absence - i assumed that he'd read the script and decided to hang out in a Munich basement eating potato chips. And yes, it was a sensible thing to do.
Re: SPOILER SPOILER
Date: 2006-06-01 10:37 pm (UTC)Re: SPOILER SPOILER
Date: 2006-06-01 11:00 pm (UTC)great icon, btw.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-01 11:09 pm (UTC)