 
|
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 |
68.37.240.251
In Reply to: Well, I remembered it took the pains to develop the characters posted by tinear on December 6, 2005 at 05:31:22:
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.
Follow Ups:
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
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 ]
