Films/DVD Asylum

Good observation

68.82.238.89

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

Victor Khomenko

(M)

In Reply to: Superb entertainment but it fails the greatness test: posted by tinear on March 3, 2005 at 16:44:36:

I sometimes wonder if I am the only one feeling that way, but apparently not.
The dehumanizing nature of subject, no matter how heavily sugar coated, shall never let the film raise to the level of greatness.
BTW - you and I had a clash over another film of this nature - about that lady serial killer. You apparently show some inconsistency here.
But entertainment professionally put together it is, however, only the original film. The second one was already completely mediocre, and the third - plain dreck.
I strongly object our fascination with deviants, perverts and criminals. I can watch those films, but I always keep the distance, and none of them had ever occupied a high spot on my lists. The rare case when subject does matter.

Follow Ups:

Re: Part II - rico 02:16:17 03/31/05 (5)
Many, myself included, consider Part II a better film than the superb Part I.
- Re: Part II - Victor Khomenko 04:37:15 03/31/05 (4)
  I dunno rico, to me the original one shall remain... well, original, with that feel you simply can't repeat. Like your first real love. To me that also was special affair, as I could not see it for several years when it came out, but read aplenty about it, to make my appetite bothersome. I thinks I saw it for the first time in 1979, when I came here.
  The part II has that strong derivative scent, that I always find objectionable, and to mee it frankly feels almost unnecessary. Many things should better be left untouched, like the original film in that case.
  Inspite of the problem that tin pointed out, it is a near-great fiml. And add to all those elements already mentioned the incredible Nino Rota score, and it is something you will carry with you for the rest of your life. But part II I thought added nothing to this strong sensation, just used it.
  - Re: Part II - rico 06:05:28 03/31/05 (3)
    But Part II contains the rest of the novel so I don't think you can call it "derivative" (not so for Part III).
    - Re: Part II - Victor Khomenko 06:14:31 03/31/05 (2)
      Yes, I know, but it is still seems unnecessary.
      The original one was a concise work that should have been left alone in my view. Having the sequels actually waters down its effect and significance. And for many of us Goodfather is synonimous with Brando - such monumental was the significance of his role and performance.
      Do you know if the original plan presumed the part II?
      - Re: Part II - rico 06:58:10 03/31/05 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Part II posted by Victor Khomenko on March 31, 2005 at 06:14:31:
        
        I don't think so as he had trouble getting the first one done, particularly since the studio didn't like his casting. But after it won the Best Picture Academy Award they greenlighted Part II.
        
        Not just green lighted it - LWR 07:49:44 03/31/05 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Part II posted by rico on March 31, 2005 at 06:58:10:
        
        but gave him an unlimited budget. Part one was shot on a shoestring without much backing by the studio or it would have had the same epic sweep as part 2.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Kimber Kable

You can not post to an archived thread.