|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Watched it last night and haven't really formed a definitive opinion. Oh yeh, I liked it very much, but did I think is great, exceptional, (insert adjective of choice)? Any one have an opinion?I did think the acting (especially Natalie Portman, Jean Reno, and Gary Oldman) was superb.
For my review of The Professional, see:www.jmreview.web.com
***Watched it last night and haven't really formed a definitive opinion. Oh yeh, I liked it very much, but did I think is great, exceptional, (insert adjective of choice)? Any one have an opinion?
I did think the acting (especially Natalie PortmanShe was simply unbelievable. I think that movie put her on the map big times.
***, Jean Reno,
I have a very soft spot for Jean. He is much more well-known in Europe than he is in the US, though.
***and Gary Oldman) was superb.That one I couldn't care less for. I think he is grossly overrated, but shalow. I see him in the same category as Leonardo. Empty barrel.
Overall the movie is not really much, you take the two actors out and what is left is just bunk. But the way it is it is a great entertainment.
Too bad Natalie is not doing much more than she is doing. On the other hand, maybe that is actully good.
Another movie you might want to see with her is Beautiful Girls - she is quite good there.
> > > Overall the movie is not really much, you take the two actors out and what is left is just bunk. < < <Unfortunately, that is true about too many movies today. But when you do have special chemistry between excellent actors, it can make an average movie into a great one. When the plot is bad but the cast is good, I tend to focus on the performances and tune out the rest. In many cases it can save the day.
Is the opposite also true by any chance? Can't remember any great movie with lousy actors... Maybe Barry Lyndon comes the closest... but then again, it maybe simply an another example how the great director can control and transform everything, including the actors.
Hmm, that's a tough one. Maybe Vertigo? Kim Novak wasn't much of a talent, and James Stewart was seriously miscast. In fact, it was said Hitchcock regretted his decision to use him. Later Stewart wanted the lead in North By Northwest, but Hitchcock naturally turned him down in favor of Cary Grant - a very wise choice. Then again, I don't know if you would call Vertigo a greart movie. Highly enjoyable, but great?Do you remember one of Hitchcock's early American efforts, The Trouble With Harry? Starring Shirley McLaine and John Forsythe. I saw it when it came out (that dates me) and have the tape somewhere. I recall enjoying it - as close to a comedy as Hitchcock ever made.
I saw it several years ago and thought it was an entertaining film with some excellent performances in the leading roles. Jean Reno is great in that kind of part. What I didn't realize until your post, was that it was Natalie Portman playing the kid! I have a poor memory for faces and just didn't file the name of the young actress into memory, I guess. Definitely going to re-rent it. I remember, at the time, thinking it a little implausible that a kid could maintain composure under the circumstances, but other than that, I thought it was excellent. I'll let you know what I think of a second viewing of it.
Saw it again. It still required a generous "suspension of disbelief", but the performances by Natalie Portman and Jean Reno are marvelous. Oldman was a little over the top{seemed to me like he might have used Frank Booth(Hopper character in Blue Velvet)as a reference point)} and just didn't quite pull it off. The movie is engrossing and even touching at times. I'd recommend it for people who like films that manage to include some heart along with their graphic violence.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: