 
|
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 |
4.254.136.169
much better the second time around. Much.
I don't know why but the underacting of Crowe may be the reason?
Occasionally this happens: the second time seems almost like a different movie.
Not a great movie, mind you, but I fully enjoyed it and find myself a bit anxious for the sequel.
Follow Ups:
with the waves splashing, the timber and ropes creaking you can almost feel the Surprises deck under your feet ( ! )
I enjoyed the film more on a second viewing, tho' I don't think any Napoleonic era sea captain would have been anywhere near as easy going as Crowes portrayalGrins
I suppose I've been a fan of O'Brien's novels since circa 1994. BTW, I do think these books are "literature" and highly recommend them to any fan of Jane Austen and/or sea tales, of which I suspect there are few on this forum :-)I thought Weir did a fine job on M&C, which wasn't so much an adaptation of any specific book as much as it was a fantasia on the Aubrey & Maturin using themes and a rough outline from several. It really is the best movie of its type IMO, and true to the spirit of the novels, if not the precise letter. M&C isn't Alexander Nevsky but it is a well crafted adventure yarn - I call it an action pic for smart people. It is another universe from sand & sandal epics or MTV historicals like Gladiator.
I'm not a fan of Crowe personally (how????) but he gave a fine performance in this film, as did Paul Bettany.
The film itself, while a "rousing adventure" type of entertainment, was not particualarly dumbed down or Hollywood-ized IMO. In fact, it is anything but a typical adventuire flick and I'm sure the themes and pacing of the film were quite trying for those with short attention spans. M&C boasts a literate script, gorgeous cinematography, excellent supporting performances, amazing (and fairly accurate) production design and the best soundscape design I have ever heard in any film (and not just the battle scenes).
Speaking of battles - Victor - M&C isn't really about large, pitched sea battles a la Trafalgar et al. Those were actually quite rare. The "Surprise", the frigate commanded by Aubrey, was muich too small to take part in a fight of that sort. The plot of M&C is centers around the cat & mouse game played with a single ship, which is more the type of engagement Surprise would have encountered.
I think that this has the best sound of any DVD at the moment.
Some parts of the plot had significant charm. It had a certain intelligence that was appealing. I'm just glad enough "Hollywood"ization left the boys unviolated.
♪ moderate Mart £ ♫ ☺ Planar Asylum
x
Yes. Not a master work if I may say so, but still a good moment.
...in the disliking of this film. I dare say I loved it and found not a single minute of it boring. I thought Crowe was smashing in it. I'd be curious to hear more about what y'all found so lacking.A quick check on Rotten Tomatoes proves a generally very positive response to this film among professional critics and an almost exact match among the non-professional "users."
eb
Couldn't agree more.
2 + hrs. of sheer boredom....I had high hopes for that movie in spite of disliking Crowe...I have great respect for the director...A sequel!!!! Hollywood is really out-of-control!!! What's next a sequel to The Aviator....God help us!!!
I have it here, and I know there would be a few hundred other films I would see before this one, presumably when no new film was available.So I suppose something stuck with you when you saw it last time - what was it?
but I'd be lying if I said that was the reason. Fact is, I hooked up my audio to the tv, finally, and wanted to experience the battle scenes again. Funny that those were the least "improved" scenes to my experience. I appreciated much more the relationship between the doc and the "master" though it was a bit dumbed down.
Still, it wasn't based on a "classic" book so one wouldn't expect a masterwork, necessarily. It was superb entertainment, far above the Gladiators, StarWars, and other films made primarily for kids. The music also didn't intrude, a charming attribute often missing these days in just about any genre.
You probably know I am a sucker for well done battle scenes, but M&C left me kind of cold... when I want to see a great depiction I would pull the Waterloo or W&P - both are unmatched in that regard. The 45 minute Borodino sequence in the W&P is fantastic.It is true that the naval warfare had received much poorer coverage in movies than land wars, so perhaps the M&C is one of the better examples of such events. Of course the film gives you a hightly Hollywoodized presentation, but it is still better than what you usually see.
I wasn't trying to be mean here, I honestly find that movie boring. Of course I agree it is much better than the Gladiator.
in liking his performance as much as I did. I found it, upon re-watching, well... masterful. The character developed well, along the story and therefore believably, and I found Crowe portrayed the strength of character and the personality of what I'd imagine that of a true Captain. Unlike just about any other film depicting leadership of men at war, Crowe showed the Capt. to be, at times, almost silly, and to have a fully developed sense of humor. How he made his men respect him, even though he showed them his "softer side" I found interesting and realistic.
Yes so did I.
There was this human touch you are mostly missing in the old Hollywood.
And if Kong is failing, then there will have to be a new one.
that the most memorable scenes are the ones in which he is the quietist. He doesn't chew up the scenery, which is remarkable in this day and age given his role. Imagine what a Pacino or DeNiro would have done (at least in this stage of their careers!).
You seem to assume that an actor acts independently of the screenplay and the director. DeNiro in Signals was not DeNiro in Goodfellas or Casino. And Crowe in M&C was not the same as Crowe in A Beautiful Mind.
You haven't read much about how direction works, have you?
If you think actors that are stars, such as those I mentioned, kowtow to screenwriters (hardee har har) or directors you're too far beyond the pale to educate.
.
"Where are we going? And what am I doing in this hand basket?"
Really? Not read much about how direction works? You mean the actors improvise? Make up their own lines? Perhaps you could cite some books or written material on the matter? What is your authority? Tell me what you have read? Or are, what would we say, making shit up? Again?
Well, it seems to me that 'dictate' is keyword here. Much would depend upon actor's status-personality interactions with director's
status-personality. I've read of some actors being difficult to
work with, especially with dictatorial directors, 'storming off
sets' and so on. I presume some directors permit more leeway in
actors interpretative freedom than others. Personally, if I were
an actor, I would prefer direction more as guidance than dictatorship,
as 'artistic straitjackets'would not appeal to me. ~AH
Documentary realism Is one reason "I'de" watch it again...If I was rude for butting in, I appologise.
Regards,
Bolt_Snypr
Hey, bolt, why even mention butting in - this is a public forum!I guess I can see some of that realism, but very limited. However, as I mentioned to tin, it still maybe the best naval warfare depiction.
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 ]
