 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not being a huge Babylon 5 fan, I wasn't especially looking forward to this one, but the trade reviews made it sound terrific (I was worried it would just be Angelina in a madhouse going "That's not my baby!", but it sounds far more fascinating and complex than that).
(Of course, Mystic River got raves, and I thought that was Clint's most overrated film).
|
|
|
|
|
|
I still wish Clint would leave the scoring of his great films to much more capable hands than his own. I don't have anything against his very simple approach to the use of music in his latest films, but it would be great if Eastwood would hire someone like John Williams or Thomas Newman or even his old pal Lalo Schifrin. It would add an even greater depth to his brilliant filmmaking style IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Nov 4, 2009 - 2:19 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
A FEW SPOILERS AHEAD!
Well, I finally got around to this one, pr. my promise above.
Any film based on true events that actually makes me go to wikipedia to learn more about the events it was based on, is A-OK in my book.
It's a film that piles on and on with "unfair" scenarios. Just when it's gotten really bad for the Jolie character, they add something new (she loses her son, is opposed by the police, thrown in a mental institution etc.). I was anxious to see how Eastwood would resolve all this...you just NEED some kind of moral katharsis with this kind of setup. Well, you do get one - of sorts -although she is never reconciled with her son. Her "renewed hope" is pretty much as close as we get.
I was mightily impressed by Jolie's acting. First when she reacts to the fact that they've found "her son" - got a lump throat there - and then her whole progression from being a rather weak, not so resourceful woman caught in her own trauma to a strong, vindictive, powerful woman that literally takes down the whole LA police force on her own.
What I REALLY liked about this film, though, was how "real" the 20's and 30's setting felt. It could be today, only it wasn't. Must be something with the realistic cinematography and the refusal to pile on with retro elements, smoke, colour filters etc. that they usually do. Very clean.
I loved Eastwood's music too, as I usually do. Sparingly spotted, haunting melodies for both piano and guitar. But this sounded a bit more lush than usual, with some string arrangements and stuff. Did Clint do these too or did he get some help from Niehaus?
That it AVOIDS the full symphonic treatment or silly jazz clichées or whatever is one of the film's MAJOR strengths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A FEW SPOILERS AHEAD!
What I REALLY liked about this film, though, was how "real" the 20's and 30's setting felt. It could be today, only it wasn't. Must be something with the realistic cinematography and the refusal to pile on with retro elements, smoke, colour filters etc. that they usually do.
You're going to love PUBLIC ENEMIES with that sort of talk. That wasn't even shot on film! (And is a superb film in so many other ways too, but the aesthetics are a huge make-or-break part of it for people.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 5, 2009 - 12:56 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
A FEW SPOILERS AHEAD!
What I REALLY liked about this film, though, was how "real" the 20's and 30's setting felt. It could be today, only it wasn't. Must be something with the realistic cinematography and the refusal to pile on with retro elements, smoke, colour filters etc. that they usually do.
You're going to love PUBLIC ENEMIES with that sort of talk. That wasn't even shot on film! (And is a superb film in so many other ways too, but the aesthetics are a huge make-or-break part of it for people.)
Actually, I HAVE seen PUBLIC ENEMIES now. I agree, that has some of the same feeling due to the digital camera, among other things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
