 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Steven Soderbergh continues in the neo classical vein with 'Soraris'. Either he is obeying the current Hollywood imperative of betting on sure things (usually resulting in near misses, 'Solaris' being a case in point) or he simply has no original ideas. I suppose if he were really daring, given today's climate, he would have at least attempted a musical version. I eagerly await his remake of '2001'
Follow Ups:
Both movies are pathetic at best when compared with the book.
the sense of humor.
Kind of reminds me of what a prominent film critic said years ago in reminiscing about a private dinner at a film festival at which many critics admitted, after much drink, that they were bored silly by many "serious" films, but to admit it would strip their gravitas.
Specifically, the problem with many "art" films is their lack of pacing. The director either should have been a still photographer or a novelist.
At any rate, this problem multiplied when "talkies" began. It seems many directors mistakenly have conflated movies---let's move, already!---theatre (I'd bet, without actually having researched it, that many Russian film directors began in theatre), and literature, i.e. very little movement, lots of talking (especially voice overs and narration), little or no plot development. In a word...boring.
This story is boring as hell, and only “works” in written form as one would consider an interesting read, nothing more. I remember reading about Clooney bitching out a critic at the screening who called it “plain boring” -- If you found Solaris entertaining, then you're reading too much into the movie – You're reading into what is not there –, and it didn't help that a really bitchy and pigheaded guy was chosen to star in it, who also read too much into it.
wow, i guess you must live the daring life that soderberg doesn't. i'd hate to think what you'd say of my life choices and my nerdy job.i think you short change soderberg. he's built up his name and career to the point where he can get julia roberts in an "experimental" film (full frontal). i suspect that soderberg makes the films he wants to make, if not the films you want him to make.
saying that hollywood sucks is just a remake of what's already been said for decades and decades. if you want to be daring, gift chris nolan the money it takes to make a film with three oscar winning actors.
The sad thing about Soderbergh is that he began with a pretty interesting independant film, then got taken in by Hollywood, which always goes out of its way to be accomodating with up and comers whilst slipping soporifics into their drinks, gelding and eviscerating them in their sleep so that everything that they do subsequently has that happy, glossy look we all know and love. Soderbergh is now safe in the same way Elvis got safe through Ricky Nelson, the Beatles got safe through the Monkeys (and Muzak!). You know, it's like seeing an ad on the back of a cereal box inviting you to "Join the Hip Hop life style!", "Become a Gangsa!", etc. Another example is Christopher Nolan. He was going in a pretty interesting direction with 'Following' and 'Memento'. Then we get his first comercial feature and what is it? Yes, a remake of a nice safe 'art film', 'Insomnia'. There are countless examples. Very few people can work inside this system and come up with anything genuine. It pretty much killed Sam Pekinpah. Kubrick had to move to England. And Welles ... Yes, Welles.
...tell us what you think of the original Solaris.Enough of that light, insignificant and easy Hollywood stuff - get real.
Big World real.
I have not seen the Tarkovsky 'Sorlaris' in a while but I was impressed at the time ... Not overwhelmed, I admit, but it's something I've intended to go back to. Have you seen the Criterion? Why I jumped on Soderbergh was that I thought the original was so all of a piece and expressive of a very definite sensibility and vision that I saw no reason to remake it, to in fact downsample it so that it would be palatable to cruder sensibilities. I also attempted 'The Stalker', I remember, but it defeated me with all its talk. If I were a native Russian speaker I might feel differently.
Don't feel ashamed - Stalker killed both my wife and me, and we are both native Russian speakers, of course. It is simply too trendy - the 1970 Soviet intelligentsia poking its own orifices, I thought.Yes, I did see the Criterion release, it is great. It is one of my perhaps twenty favorite films, far ahead of the 2001. If you haven't seen it in a long time, I almost envy you - my date with it after fifteen years or so was mesmerizing. It helps that Banionis has been one of the favorite actors for decades.
My feelings about the remakes - ALL remakes - has been completely negative all along.
Last night I saw again the Purple Noon - I saw bits and pieces of the remake and that was enough for me... Delon is not a great artist, but there was an ocean of talent between him and Matt Damon.
"My feelings about the remakes - ALL remakes - has been completely negative all along."An understandable point of view, but you should keep in mind that John Huston's The Maltese Falcon (one of my favourite Hollywood movies) is not just a remake but is the third version (a reremake).
Some movies are greatly improved by being remade, others not! Examples of better remakes include Scaramouche -- I'm a silent movie aficionado, but the original silent version is a plodding bore compared to the rousing tongue'n cheek technicolor version from 1952 with Stuart Granger -- ...and even the Mark of Zorro -- while I like the original Fairbanks version for it's technical excellence and Fairbank's athleticism, it can't touch the pace, witty repartee and swordplay of the 1940 version starring Tyrone Power.Then there are some movies which were grand achievements in their own rite and should've just been left alone. Films like Prisoner of Zenda, King Kong & Mighty Joe Young, even the silent Ben Hur (Ramon Navarro being a far better actor without sound than Charlton Heston is with sound), and Planet of the Apes (Charlton Heston does star in this one, but even with that drawback the original's material is fresher and makes more sense than Tim Burton's remake).
Of course, then there are movies which shouldn't be made AT ALL, much less remade, like Lost In Space, Charlie's Angels, the Beverly Hillbillies and most of the other TV knock-offs with rare exception, and movies like Solaris which were horribly slow and boring in their original versions. I'm sure that some will differ with me here, but I actually felt the seasons pass while trying to sit through Tarkovsky's agonizingly snail-paced flick.
AuPh
Well, it ain't remakes per se that bother me ... For instance, I like the Phil Kaufman 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' as well as the original Siegal. There are others I can't think of off the top of my head. That's not the problem. It's when a guy's last three films are remakes ... when there are so MANY remakes and, as you point out, TV show treatments, comic books, musical versions, send ups, rip offs, rehashes of all kinds, which points to a general unwillingness on the part of investors to get behind anything original. This of course has always been true but it seems to me that we're seeing a whole lot more of it lately and I'm bloody well bored with it.
I look forward to seeing the Criterion. Any feelings about other Tarkovsky films? 'The Mirror', for instance. Or 'Andrey Rubilev'. I have not seen either but they are definitely on my list.
I love them both and have them. I think Rublev will be easier on the Westerner (all those monks, dark Russian ages... exotic!), but some undertones will be missed - impossible to avoid this in a history-based film. It is monumental, substantial and deep... a treat to any serious film lover. Cinematography and directing are top notch.Mirror is trickier. On the surface it is Bergmanesque, no doubt, but with strong Russian flavor - miss that flavor and you miss great deal of essense, I think.
But these are just my "native" observations - I don't know how well they are translated, for instance, and this is critical, as both as full of subtle hints.
All these issues nothwithstanding, if you love serious films, these two are musts.
Among the Tarkovsky's works I like one of his first ones: The Steamroller and the Violin... beautiful little work.
"Ivanovo Detstvo" good too.
"Nostalgia" and "Sacrifice" - I think he was losing his true identity by that time. Both serious works, but less of Tarkovsky is visible in them, I think.
The beauty is all these are available widely. So - one week, and you are done!
Well, you talked me into it. I'll go for the lot. Actually, I'm no stranger to Russian culture, so I don't think I'll miss everything by not speaking the language. Translation in subtitles is always a problem, of course, but I tend to move with the visual rhythmns when it comes to film, which is really all you need to do in many American films, where music, montage and art direction are what's happening.
We all have to deal with subs - how else would we experience the miracles of Bergman, Fellini, Kurosawa and others? I am sure in every such case we do lose some, but you are right - usually we manage to get absorbed in the flow, if the film is worth being absorbed into.
I like Soderbergh. Traffic was well photographed and did a decent job in a remake of the BBC miniseries. Yes, some things were changed, and there's no accounting for cast, but the look of the movie was great.The Limey is one of my favorite pictures. It is smartly shot, extremely well acted, and incredibly edited (by far the best editing I've ever seen).
I might be the only one on this board, let alone in America, who liked Solaris. I didn't think it was great, but I liked it well enough. I've seen Tarkovsky's version, and I found it to be too long without the content to back up that running time.
Kafka is underrated. It's well acted and the production design is worth the price of admission alone.
No comment on Brokovich because I cannot stand Julia.
Sex, Lies & Videotape I've seen so many times, I've lost count. 'Nuff said.
Ocean's 11 was fun. Just the kind of movie you turn your brain off for. Not everything has to be cerebral, you know.
For a Hollywood director, he has a lot of cred, being able to write, direct, edit, shoot and produce. Perhaps he doesn't rank up there with the all time greats, but who the hell does who's working in Hollywood these days?
I haven't see his Solaris, but given his pale track record, what more should we expect? A sudden revelation?
there's considerable diversity between the Limey and Sex Lies and Videotape, he's not just stuck in a rut like some directors
I thought Terrence Stamp and Luis Guzman were great in the Limey, I haven't seen Stamp in such a good role since Stephen Frears film The Hit
I've suffered through Brokovitch Traffic and Oceans 11, in the balance the good has outweighed the bad
Eric
Oh, that's right, you don't like movies with strong independent female characters! ;^)
I, for one, could never get past the fact that the story presented was heavily editorialized (sort of like a Michael Moore "documentary"). Plus, everyone in it was ho-hum. Including the worst performance I've ever seen from Albert Finney (although still better than anyone else in the picture).HOWEVER, with all of this in mind, there was one scene in which Julia's character was losing it, and I actually saw more acting ability displayed there than in any of her other movies.
"Shove it up your ass and light it with a match." - a rather frustrated moderator.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
