|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I must tell frankly I have a positive bias on this one, as an ex riders I may feels more " palpability " on this one.
The story of four lives who at some point are colliding at the same crossing layered in-between with the story of the " Great Depression ".
Solidly film with no special fantasy BUT no digital effect nor over nerving agressive soundtrack.
A bit slopy ( how many jet stream can you count in this film in the blue sky? )
Of course, overly sentimental, the way the US ( it is spreading world wide ) spectator like to suffer....
I wish it would be the standart for all new films to comes... for the simple minded who, from time to time we all belongs...
Nice film.
Follow Ups:
Will you pretentious film intellects please back off. What is wrong with a feel good movie that apeals to your so called middle America. These people buy more movie tickets than you do.There are times when this type off movie works. Sure the book has more depth, How many off you read it? To bash this movie because it doesn't meet your intellectual sensitivities misses the point. Movies have always been there to give something to the"common folk". There has not been an outstanding "intellectual movie in years" by the way.
Or by hasard was it address to me?
I read the book and yes, it WAS better than the movie. It was an interesting historical non-fiction book about an interesting time and place. "Doesn't meet my intellectual sesitivities"? The movie's packed with rah-rah jingoistic grandstanding. It's feel good claptrap for a society looking desperately for escapism and feeling good about itself for something, ANYthing.No intellectual movies in years? I kinda doubt that. But even so, I don't think it's a question of intelectualism, it's a question of quality. Seabiscuit was tedious and obvious, taking no intelectual or artistic chances. It was a gritty and difficult time for America and hores racing back then was a violent and gritty world, but this film depicted it far too rosy and Disni-fied.
Who wants to see a movie designed simply for "the common folk"? How dull.
Most movies ARE designed for the common folk. Most movies suck. Most movies are forgotten 5 years after their release.
!
nt.
!
nt.
There was too much of an effort made to sanitize the milieu of the racetrack. The glorious "Sport of Kings" as an escape from the horrors and travails of the Depression? Too simplistic; I didn't buy into it. And I'll never understand why some people consider this one of the best movies of the year.
Still it is a pleasant film. sanitised and desodorised.
made it through one hr., longer than most. Ultra predictable, sort of "The Natural" for the horsey set...
It was the genuine feel good movie of the year.I'm wondering if Toby Maguire is the New Age Jimmy Stewart? He's come on strong in all his movies.
Not that Seabiscuit was a bad movie, but it had a little too much 21st century revisionism for my tastes; it just didn't ring true most of the time. BTW, I don't have a problem with "feel-good" movies, but I don't like manipulation that eliminates the gray areas, especially in films based upon historical facts.
I found him especially good in "The Cider House Rules"
nope
Chis Cooper. He is probably the best character actor in Hollywood today. Just compare this performance with his work in Adaptation and American Beauty. You's be hard pressed to say they were all the same actor, so completely does he disapear into each role.
Check out "Lone Star" to see him carry a two-hour story without once doing an "Al Pacino" scenery-chew.
n
Yes.
Yes..yes..but I do found it pleasurable, and that, more than most.
Far too obvious and far too linear.The movie gave the 30s an artifical soft focus warm and fuzzy glow.
I was not moved by it at all.
It is exactly the kind of movie that wins best picture oscars.
Many directors choose a film stock to achieve that effect, believing that the sense of "this is really then" is heightened.
Yes, the film stock can give you the fuzzies as can color-cast in the lighting and the fact that half the movie was shot in "magic hour" conditions too. It's all so idyllic . . .
If you see this kinds of pictures and are wondering about his predictability..then you are naive!
If you like horses you may be more easy on this film.
.
I think "Chinatown" and "Bonnie and Clyde" are in this league.
And Sullivanīs is not bad too..
If you mean "The Grapes of Wrath" Ford's film was made in 1940 so it was far easier to achieve an authentic look than a period film made decades later.
You dare to compare the two?
It is a joke!
I believe it was you who compared the two. I was just commenting on your comparison, which is unfair to begin with.
That is true but who said Sea was the best film on the great depression?
Hi,
my Mom grew up in the Depression. My Grandfather used to talk about it; and when we went to retirement homes to see his friends they would talk about the Good Old Days. What sets Seabiscuit apart is the way it captures the language, attitudes, and mood of the era.
Clearly, the people in Grapes of Wrath had a very different experience, and just as valid. But I can tell you that nothing I have seen captures that feel the way Seabiscuit does.
Steinbeck against Seabiscuit...Hum...
Got the collector's edition DVD from the Mrs. for Xmas-the bonus disc has footage from the Seabiscuit/War Admiral 1938 match race.Beautiful cinematography-it should be the hands-down winner in that category, at least.
"A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them".
-P. J. O'Rourke
Did you note that the races were "choreographed" by famed Jockey Chris McCarron?
I read about it, but I was a little bit disappointed as for the filming of the race. My reference is " The Chariots of Fire " and it did not reach, not even close the quality of it.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: