|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
4.254.138.217
"Romancing the Stone (with a conscience)."
One hates to degrade a film with such an obviously good heart... but facts are facts. This is one terrible film which couldn't make up its mind if it was "Rambo," the aforementioned Michael Douglas vehicle, or an exposé. It fails on all three counts.
The bulletproof whiteman saving the black man's family. That says it all. Oh, and Africa is exploited.
Has there been less chemistry between romantic leads in a recent film? Of course, the clunkers they were forced to utter would have stymied Tracy and Hepburn.
One second, Leonardo is spouting off, "What's it with you (to Jennifer) Yanks--- always getting sentimental" and, two breaths later, he's tearfully sharing the fate of his parents. Boohooo.
Searching for the boy, searching for the stone... how about just one silly, far-fetched impossible task per movie?
And for God's sake, would the ending be possible in anyone's mind but that of a myriad of coke-snorting Hollywoodians?
By himself, the inexperienced fisherman suddenly can negociate the sale? When he couldn't find his own son alone on his home turf?
Much as been written about di Caprio's sudden emergence as an actor of substance!
Not here, not yet.
Did I for one moment think this was a "Man of Fortune?"
No.
It was painfully obvious this was a poorly shaven, bulked up Leonardo trying to be tough. He, like Edward Norton and Matt Damon and Marky Mark, just doesn't have the Mitchum-Palance-(Rob't.) Ryan-De Niro-Marvin or many other actors' tough-guy persona.
Good popcorn movie?
Yes, with reservations: better get the refillable bucket, giant-sized. As usual with this era of Hollywood film, it goes on for a good 30 minutes too long.
Follow Ups:
I liked it.....didn't expect it to cause me to find Jesus. I thought that Leo did a nice job.
I concur with most of your comments. The majority of the acting was not very convincing and the "message" of the movie was too blatant and spoon-fed. As far as Leo specifically, I didn't have high expectations for his performance going in to the movie - and imho he delivered one of standard, mediocre performances, Leo still comes across as a light weight-pretty boy, even though he's starting to look a bit bloated.
""One hates..."? I'll bet. It is obvious that you just love to denigrate just about every film that plays to both critical and popular acclaim. By doing so you can smugly rise above everyone else and become an elite, effete, snob. I happen to think that this was the second best film of 2006, the best being "Notes on a Scandal" which, as I recall, you didnt like either. Best wishes.
Children of Men. Popular and critically successful and I liked it a lot.
Haven't yet seen Notes on a Scandal.
Sorry you've taken some of my reviews to heart. It's only my opinion, calm yourself.
Made $35 Million US and about $69 million worldwide. Cost $76 million to make.And come on, you do seem to relish brutalizing movies you don't like, especially when others have expressed that they do.
year's best or says Leonardo did an Oscar worthy job... well, I've got to set the record straight and save the reputation of this board (harrrrumph).
Why some people get angry just because someone disagrees with their opinion is beyond me. I feel exasperation that many superb works of art in film are unknown, underappreciated, or widely denigrated.
I console myself by remembering that most Americans prefer fast food to the real thing.
It may not stand up to the latest navel-gazing b&w indie from Outer Mongolia, but it was an entertaining action drama and much better than most of current major movie output.
just went along for the admittidly, overall, lightweight ride. I never mind looking at JC and I was one those who expressed being impressed by LD's performance... and I still am.
..O!
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: