In Reply to: Re: Good performances don´t make a better film. posted by patrickU on June 29, 2004 at 06:55:32:
had a long history with Robbins...but none of that seemed relevant in that last, long scene of murder. The two brothers just seemed to detract from what should have been THE opportunity for the two principal characters to interact. Instead, Penn just goes ballistic, nothing memorable is said, the scene goes on too long with no tension, no DRAMA. The solution of the crime, as well, is a "gotcha:" the viewer has no chance to figure it out because we aren't given enough information. That alone cripples a "whodunit." So, it fails as a psychological examination of guilt, vengeance, and cycles of violence. It could have been so much more.
21 works because it is much more "personal." Penn has a relationship which is breaking up; the director takes time to make his relationship with Naomi Watts develop. When the climax approaches, it means something (though I'd have been happier if the hokey revenge thing was left out).
I hope in your post you're not implying that in movies such as these you can have an excellent result with less than excellent acting? Unless you're talking about action films, acting is THE KEY.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- MR built to a climax....and it disappointed. Penn - tinear 18:00:15 06/29/04 (3)
- Re: MR built to a climax....and it disappointed. Penn - patrickU 01:00:32 06/30/04 (2)
- Penn is Sean, of course. Have you seen "Dead Man Walking"? - tinear 06:35:45 06/30/04 (1)
- Re: Yes I did... - patrickU 07:15:01 06/30/04 (0)