Reply to Topic
I disagree personally. If i want to learn about someones life i'll read a book. I don't think Capote would've been any better if they focused on his earlier years; i think it would've either been worse or too long actually. I'm not saying a biopic that is an overview of someones life can't be good, i just don't think it has to be that. I've not seen The Queen but i'd much rather watch a film focused on a specific period in her life than a movie about her whole life.
Citizen Rules...Cinemaesque Chat-n-Review
→ in Movie Reviews
I disagree personally. If i want to learn about someones life i'll read a book. I don't think Capote would've been any better if they focused on his earlier years; i think it would've either been worse or too long actually. I'm not saying a biopic that is an overview of someones life can't be good, i just don't think it has to be that. I've not seen The Queen but i'd much rather watch a film focused on a specific period in her life than a movie about her whole life.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Well i disagree with that again because it would take me 30 seconds of searching after hearing the title to find out exactly what it is about. And i take the titlle as the movie is completely focused on this real life person; as in the movie is more about the queen than it is the whole royal family. Mostly though i just don't care about titles.
X
Favorite Movies
I hadn't seen this particular scene for 32 years! And even though I've seen Dune at least a half dozen times since, I totally forgot about this scene as it's cut from the extended version.
Towards the start of the film, we're introduced to the bad guys, the Harkonnens. The cut scene, has a young effeminate boyish male enter the Baron Harkonnen's chamber, where he places flowers on the wall...and he's scared senseless! I mean he's little, puny and shaking all over, he looks like he's entered into hell. The Baron with a lusting, devious gleam in his eye walks over to him, caresses his face and then...pulls out his heart plug, with blood splattering the Baron in the face, who's loving it. As the poor young male is being drained of his blood, the camera cuts to a close up of the Baron's face, so that we can't seen what he does next to young male, but it appears to be something violent, sexual done as the poor victim dies.
It's effective, like the Solaris dwarf scene, because it's brief and we never seen what is actually happening, we only see that the victim is terrified, which then allows our minds to fill in the disgusting stuff.
Towards the start of the film, we're introduced to the bad guys, the Harkonnens. The cut scene, has a young effeminate boyish male enter the Baron Harkonnen's chamber, where he places flowers on the wall...and he's scared senseless! I mean he's little, puny and shaking all over, he looks like he's entered into hell. The Baron with a lusting, devious gleam in his eye walks over to him, caresses his face and then...pulls out his heart plug, with blood splattering the Baron in the face, who's loving it. As the poor young male is being drained of his blood, the camera cuts to a close up of the Baron's face, so that we can't seen what he does next to young male, but it appears to be something violent, sexual done as the poor victim dies.
It's effective, like the Solaris dwarf scene, because it's brief and we never seen what is actually happening, we only see that the victim is terrified, which then allows our minds to fill in the disgusting stuff.
I think the entire scene with the introduction of the Harkonnens was my favorite part of the movie (maybe I just love bad guys?).
There was the ultra-gross draining of the Baron's pimples or blisters by his Doctor (weren't they saving the puss and funneling it somewhere?), and the introduction of his two hit-men (were they his sons or nephews or something?)
Sting played one by the name of "Feyd Rautha," of course. But more interestingly, the actor who played "the Beast Rabban" was Paul L. Smith; famous for his role as the brutal prison guard Midnight Express (1978) and (even more curiously) for playing Bluto in Popeye (1980)!
X
Favorite Movies
Yup the Harkonnen's were wickedly gross, inlcuding the pus extraction, gross and the critter squeeze box, ugh!
I never seen Popeye or Midnight Express, but I could see him be a brutal prison guard. The actor who played the Baron Kenneth McMillian was Valerie Harper's boss on Rhoda. He was pretty good in that too.
I never seen Popeye or Midnight Express, but I could see him be a brutal prison guard. The actor who played the Baron Kenneth McMillian was Valerie Harper's boss on Rhoda. He was pretty good in that too.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Well i disagree with that again because it would take me 30 seconds of searching after hearing the title to find out exactly what it is about. And i take the titlle as the movie is completely focused on this real life person; as in the movie is more about the queen than it is the whole royal family. Mostly though i just don't care about titles.
Similarly with Young Mr. Lincoln (1939) the title lets you know it's about his early life - not his entire life.
My problem with The Queen is really the title. A more appropriate title would've been something like "The Death of Diana" or "Lady Di: the Aftermath" or "The Royals and the Death of Lady Di" because that's what it is mostly about.
X
Favorite Movies
I agree with Capt and Gideon that titles like The Queen are misleading if they don't actually represent the entire story... and that can give a false impression on what the movie is really about. In turn the movie then can not live up to a viewer's preconceived notions as to what they are about to watch...which then causes disappointments.
Preconceived movie ideas, are often the movies downfall, when it doesn't deliver what a person imaged it would. It happens to me all the time.
With that all said, I agree with Camo, in that generally I prefer a film like The Queen that focuses on one specific event as opposed to telling the whole life story. It's hard to squeeze an entire life into two hours. Though it has been done successful before.
Preconceived movie ideas, are often the movies downfall, when it doesn't deliver what a person imaged it would. It happens to me all the time.
With that all said, I agree with Camo, in that generally I prefer a film like The Queen that focuses on one specific event as opposed to telling the whole life story. It's hard to squeeze an entire life into two hours. Though it has been done successful before.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
The Jungle Book (2016)
Director: Jon Favreau
Writers: Justin Marks(screenplay), Rudyard Kipling(book)
Cast: Neel Sethi, Bill Murray (voice), Ben Kingsley(voice), Christopher Walken(voice), Idris Elba(voice)
Genre: Adventure, Drama, Family
about: A boy who is branded in the jungle and raised by talking wolfs. The other animals like him and refer to the boy as 'Mowgli' a man-cub. When a furious, hateful tiger 'Shere Khan' learns of the existence of the man-cub, he demands the wolf pack turns the him over so he can kill him. Instead the boy, with a help of a friendly panther, 'Bagheera', leaves his wolf home and journeys to new places deep in the jungle. There he meets a friendly bear named Baloo (Bill Murray).
Review: This 2016 version of the classic, The Jungle Book, is a live action-CG film. The only live actor is the boy Mowgli, the talking animals are all CG
I guess I liked this for what it was. It had the tried and true formula of the:reluctant hero who's forced to leave the safety of his home and go on a quest to defeat an ultimate evil. Along the way he's guided by a wise mentor, meets mystic figures and earns their respect and pals up with a fun loving side kick. Sound familiar? This could be Star Wars set in the jungle. It was too violent for small children, lucky for me I'm not in pre-school
The young actor who played the man-cub, Neel Sethi did an awesome job of being natural on screen and believable too. He's really good. It was fun to see him interact with all of these different types of animals, and each animal species had it's own ways about it.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I love the Disney version of The Jungle Book, and I'm looking forward to seeing this new version. I remember the trailer looked pretty scary, so I'm not surprised that it's too violent for small children.
__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
My problem with The Queen is really the title. A more appropriate title would've been something like "The Death of Diana" or "Lady Di: the Aftermath" or "The Royals and the Death of Lady Di" because that's what it is mostly about.
I get what you guys are saying and i agree the title is misleading. I just don't see how that could be a problem for you in 2016, a minute or two of searching and you'd find out it's not a straight biopic of the queen. Then you can decide whether you want to see it or not. I think people who would have a problem with that after that either just like moaning or more likely would've preferred it to be a whole life biopic of the queen which brings us back to it not being about the title.
X
Favorite Movies
I haven't seen it but wouldn't those with the possible exception of "Lady Di: the Aftermath" be even more misleading? If i read that i'd think Diana would be the main character, at least The Queen is actually about The Queen. Saying that i'm surprised they didn't slip Diana into the title since a movie about her death would probably be of more interest to the general public than a movie about the queen.
I get what you guys are saying and i agree the title is misleading. I just don't see how that could be a problem for you in 2016, a minute or two of searching and you'd find out it's not a straight biopic of the queen. Then you can decide whether you want to see it or not. I think people who would have a problem with that after that either just like moaning or more likely would've preferred it to be a whole life biopic of the queen which brings us back to it not being about the title.
I get what you guys are saying and i agree the title is misleading. I just don't see how that could be a problem for you in 2016, a minute or two of searching and you'd find out it's not a straight biopic of the queen. Then you can decide whether you want to see it or not. I think people who would have a problem with that after that either just like moaning or more likely would've preferred it to be a whole life biopic of the queen which brings us back to it not being about the title.
Anyway, not to belabor the point. For people interested in that event and how it effected the Royals, they will probably like The Queen as it is well acted and well done (but it's not a toe-tapper, knee-slapper or feel good movie.)
X
Favorite Movies
Yes.
Anyway, not to belabor the point. For people interested in that event and how it effected the Royals, they will probably like The Queen as it is well acted and well done (but it's not a toe-tapper, knee-slapper or feel good movie.)
X
Favorite Movies
If you agree that those titles are more misleading than The Queen, then why did you bring them up as alternatives when your problem is that the title is misleading?
haha. I don't even know if i'll ever see it, i'm sure it's good but it's not something of much interest to me. I was initially responding to Gideons: Capote example which is a film i think is pretty great.
haha. I don't even know if i'll ever see it, i'm sure it's good but it's not something of much interest to me. I was initially responding to Gideons: Capote example which is a film i think is pretty great.
I've seen both Capote films - I find it very weird that they both told the same story and didn't they both come out within a year of each other?
X
Favorite Movies
For me, The Queen was an inside look at Queen Elizabeth and her royal family, that's what I liked about it. The death of Diana was just the catalyst to allow the movie to study the Queen in depth.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I think my point was that if you took great interest in the death of Diana, then you'll probably find the movie very interesting, but for those who kind of did a media black out on it, the movie may be a bit of a bore that takes a long look at a sad subject.
You said yourself that your problem is the title. None of your posts since then have addressed my responses to your problem with the title. You also agreed with me that the alternatives you suggested were much more misleading than The Queen. So i don't get your posts since then really.
I've seen both Capote films - I find it very weird that they both told the same story and didn't they both come out within a year of each other?
X
Favorite Movies
Okay. But your initial post that i was responding to was this - http://www.movieforums.com/community...02#post1610502
You said yourself that your problem is the title. None of your posts since then have addressed my responses to your problem with the title. You also agreed with me that the alternatives you suggested were much more misleading than The Queen. So i don't get your posts since then really.
It's an often cited The Prestige/The Illusionist kind of example of studios competing with each other on the same film. Antz/A Bugs Life is probably the most well known since it is the birth of Dreamworks.
You said yourself that your problem is the title. None of your posts since then have addressed my responses to your problem with the title. You also agreed with me that the alternatives you suggested were much more misleading than The Queen. So i don't get your posts since then really.
It's an often cited The Prestige/The Illusionist kind of example of studios competing with each other on the same film. Antz/A Bugs Life is probably the most well known since it is the birth of Dreamworks.
X
Favorite Movies
A good start Citizen 
__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Little Boy (2015)
Director: Alejandro MonteverdeWriters: Alejandro Monteverde, Pepe Portillo
Cast: Jakob Salvati, Emily Watson, David Henrie
Genre: Drama
1945 in a small Californian coastal town...An 8 year old boy, who's very small for his size is willing to do whatever it takes to get his dad to come home from the war.
Review: Don't be mislead by the title, Little Boy is not a kids movie. It's an adult drama about a small boy, nick named Little Boy, who encounters bullying due to his diminutive size, as well as experiencing bigoted hatred towards a Japanese American who lives in town.
The eight year old, Pepper Busbee, played skilfully by the young actor Jakob Salvati, is a fan of magic shows and after performing a trick with a stage magician he begins to believe he has the power to move objects with his mind...and much more. When his dad goes off to fight in World War II and is latter captured by the Japanese army, Little Boy believes he can 'will his dad back home'. I've never seen a film that dealt with this subject matter before, and it resonated with me on several levels.
After Little Boy is challenged by his older brother to move a mountain with his 'mind powers', so to teach the youngster that his powers are mere fantasy, an earthquake happens...which then further deepens the belief in Little Boy that he can will an end to World War II so his dad can come home.
I respected the way the film handles the subject of war time bigotry towards the lone Japanese American living in the small Californian town. At one point he explains to Little Boy that the town's folks hate him because 'he has the face of the enemy'. Most other movies would have taken his character and the relationship with Little Boy and done some sappy, feel good moments. Not this film! The actor (Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa) plays his character with a quiet dignity, but even more important he has a real world anger and mistrust...and who wouldn't if your house was vandalized and the town's folk mocked and threatened you.
I really like this film. I found it very different than other films and I like the way it handled it's subject matter, very intelligently done.
+
I really like this film. I found it very different than other films and I like the way it handled it's subject matter, very intelligently done.
+
Last edited by Citizen Rules; 11-27-16 at 12:17 PM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
The Last Picture Show (1971)
Writers: Larry McMurtry (novel/screeplay) Peter Bogdanovich(screenplay)
Cast: Timothy Bottoms, Jeff Bridges, Cybill Shepherd, Ben Johnson, Cloris Leachman, Ellen Burstyn, Eileen Brennan, Randy Quaid
Genre: Drama
About: A group of high school students in a small, desolate Texas town in 1951 come of age as the town slowly dies.
Review: A pretentious film, whose main claim to fame is its stark black & white photography and the desolate, wind swept streets of a small, rural Texas town. There's no dening the film has oodles of atmosphere...and it's other strong point is the fresh faced cast of unknown actors which gives the film a feeling of realism. Then again realism isn't a strong suit of this movie.
Based on the best selling novel, the film fails to capture the essences of it's characters. Their hollow shells with little meat, we scarcely know who they are or what they want as they drift about town. Instead of character development or a strong story, the movie relies on shocking (for 1971) full frontal nudity scenes, that are spliced into the movie for no other reason than to cover Bogdanovich's weak script. When the movie lags and it lags alot, Bogdanovich brings in a cop chase to create tension. Unfortunately those scenes aren't part of the narrative in any substantial way.
The first part of the movie starts off very slow with no plot. For a long time I wasn't even sure what was going on. I don't usually use this word in a review, but I was bored by the movie. At two hours long it has plenty of time to bring the characters and their lives into focus. But in Altman-esque style we get colorful characters set in an even more colorful world, and yet they do nothing. They're all dressed up with nowhere to go.
In The Last Picture Show Bogdanovich doesn't have anything much to say, so he pulls out a bag of tricks and show that he's a better director than script writer. Take away the nudity and shoot this in color and you'd have a film that no one would remember. Mostly it's the look and sets that make this movie. Most of the scenes that take place have no set-up for the character's motivation, stuff just happens. Much of the blatant sex seems like a comment on American changing values of 1971, than the going-ons of a small Texas town in 1951.
On the positive side Ben Johnson made a memorable character and picked up an Oscar for his work. Cloris Leachman gave a tour de force performance, especially the end scene which undoubtedly influenced viewers opinion, giving the film more credibility than it deserves.
On the other hand, Timothy Bottoms, as likeable as he is, is miscast. He slumps around the town like he's stoned out of his head and this is suppose to be the star quarter back of the football team. He's more of a deadbeat. It been better if his character was cast as the perennial loser, high school drop out, someone going nowhere fast. Cybill Shepard, at times seems fresh and believable at other times she's too hammy as the virgin who can't wait to get laid.
My biggest problem with the film is there are scenes that go nowhere and would have been better to cut them all together, instead of including an abbreviated version of the scene just because it was in the book. A couple examples:
When Timothy Bottoms and Cybill Shepherd decide to elope, Cybill says coyly she's left a note for her parents that the couple have crossed state lines to get married, at which Timothy Bottoms says he hopes the cops won't arrest them. Which they do.... but nothing really happens because of that scene. It doesn't change impact or change the characters growth or the narrative. Why Cybill left the note isn't made clear.
In another scene a secondary character, the preacher's son, kidnaps a little girl causing a police chase. But after they find him, nothing happens and no one cares. All that is added is another dramatic police scene to create some tension. It's clear Bogdanovich didn't know how to handle the script...but at least the film looks great.
+
Last edited by Citizen Rules; 01-05-21 at 09:07 PM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
