| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| randall |
Posted - 02/05/2007 : 04:18:10
Is it just me, or is Leo actually really good at this acting stuff? |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| randall |
Posted - 04/27/2007 : 22:29:26
My review can be found as the first post in this thread.
As for Connolly, wasn't HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG quite the nice role? |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 04/27/2007 : 15:22:17
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
That's not the impression I got from that line at all, BaftaBabe. I laughed at this movie several times. But I didn't laugh with it once, I'm pretty sure. This movie is pretty bad.
Guess we'll have to agree to differ about the nature of humour 
FWIW ... my review:
Blood Diamond
Set in and around the diamond trade of a conflict-weary Sierra Leone in the 1990s, it's a shame that Edward Zwick's powerful film splits focus so distractingly, especially in the run-up to a holiday which will probably see expensive jewellery nestled innocently under the tree. For that more socially relevant strand of the story leaves no doubt about why a diamond might be so tainted as to deserve its bloody epithet. The pursuit of that narrative stars Benin-born former catwalk model Djimon Hounsou as Solomon, a hard-working dedicated rural family man whose life is ripped apart when he's captured by a band of ruthless rebels to pan for rough diamonds, while his wife is incarcerated in a refugee camp with the two younger children, and his pre-teen son Dia is groomed by the rebels for one of those child armies still rampant in various African countries. When word gets out that Solomon's absconded with a stone as big as a bird's egg, he winds up in jail alongside Danny Archer, a morally-challenged white Zimbabwean mercenary, played with astonishing menace by Leonardo DiCaprio, making a decent stab at the accent.
This set-up offers the film a choice: to follow the trail of how complicit the west is in fuelling the international trade of sparkling gems in an obscene backing of regional chaos, brutality, and horror. How that very chaos is encouraged by the west, fomented so that very rich people become even richer, even as innocent black people are murdered, raped, have their limbs chopped off, have their children turned into drug addicts and encouraged to fire automatic weapons into villages to underscore a reign of terror. Alternatively, the film's other option is to concentrate on the thriller with romantic overtones. Hollywood being Hollywood, of course it's this narrative that the film pursues. Yes, we get glimpses into that other story, but only as it serves to move the thriller plot along.
Archer's determined to get his hands on the diamond; Solomon's buried it up in the rebel-held hills, and he convinces him to retrieve it in order to reunite his family and buy them out of Africa and into safety. But they need help. There to provide it is Jennifer Connolly as journalist Maggie Bowden, whom Danny meets in passing. Yes, of course, they're chalk and cheese, but yes, of double course, there's the obligatory uRST [unresolved sexual tension], and yes of triple course, it will be Maggie who ties together Danny's spiritual progress toward humanization and Solomon's more material salvation.
The west and rich white men are implicated in the film, but it's difficult to make that the focus for mainstream America, and increasingly for mainstream Europe. The trouble is, the thriller aspects of Blood Diamond don't sustain, despite the interminable length of the film. Still, that doesn't mean you shouldn't see it. The remarkably beautiful setting counterpoints the horrors going on beneath the jungle canopy, and the real story, equally protected by more commercial considerations, is worth being reminded of. Both male leads are excellent; someday someone will give Connolly a role worthy of her undeniable talent.
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 04/27/2007 : 14:58:01
That's not the impression I got from that line at all, BaftaBabe. I laughed at this movie several times. But I didn't laugh with it once, I'm pretty sure. This movie is pretty bad. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 04/27/2007 : 08:15:08
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
"You're in a conundrum, my friend. You know what that means? It means you have no choice."
--Leonardo DiCaprio, Blood Diamond
AAARRRRGGGG!!!!
I haven't seen this film but if I do, I'll try to ignore this line, since it will drive me nuts. If I can't control myself, I'll be shouting at the screen at that line.
(Just like I can't listen to Alanis Morissette's song "Ironic" without yelling at the CD player or radio that NONE of the things in that song are ironic!)
Hang about, hang about! It's entirely clear from Leo's delivery of this line that not only the writer and the actor, but the character knows very well that conundrum doesn't mean one has no choice. It's a FUNNY line. Not only I but everyone else in the cinema laughed when he said it. [it's among several other bon mots he gets to say throughout the film]
So go to see it, CL, with no fear of a sore throat putting a crimp on your dialogue with the screen! 
It's a flawed film, certainly, but worth a look.
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 04/27/2007 : 07:57:01
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
"You're in a conundrum, my friend. You know what that means? It means you have no choice."
--Leonardo DiCaprio, Blood Diamond
AAARRRRGGGG!!!!
I haven't seen this film but if I do, I'll try to ignore this line, since it will drive me nuts. If I can't control myself, I'll be shouting at the screen at that line.
(Just like I can't listen to Alanis Morissette's song "Ironic" without yelling at the CD player or radio that NONE of the things in that song are ironic!)
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 19:52:14
"You're in a conundrum, my friend. You know what that means? It means you have no choice."
--Leonardo DiCaprio, Blood Diamond
Note: That's not what "conundrum" means at all. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 19:33:47
quote:
Originally posted by damalc
so what constitutes a good reason?
I'm quite strict in this regard. I find it O.K. to change things for legal or practical reasons (e.g. a location is unavailable) so long as it really doesn't affect one's judgment of the characters or events. I don't like minor characters being amalgamated, timelines being changed, ages being changed etc. etc. I'd rather the film were not made than that. True stories do not need to appear in films; they can be represented in books perfectly well. Such changes would probably be the worst thing for me about any film, short of immorality being endorsed. |
| damalc |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 19:25:18
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by damalc
that's just they way it is with all based-on-a-true-story movies.
To differing degrees, though, and I still dislike all the instances of it that are not for good reason.
so what constitutes a good reason? directors and studios will say that portraying the character in a different light, time, fitting with the overall theme of the picture, and legal liability are all good reasons. btw, i think the worst example i've seen of creative license was in "Stuey," Stu Ungar's biopic. so many inconsistencies from the printed bio, it was ridiculous. |
| Shiv |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 12:10:43
I saw an interesting documentary about Capote where the film-makers were talking about the difficulty of making biopic films. That film only focuses on one part of Capote's life - it has a clear beginning and end point so they did not need to do too much manipulation of the real facts and people to portray a fairly accurate story. With films like The Aviator the span of time is so great that they need to find their beginning and end but also need to conflate events and characters to make a watchable film.
Mind you, that doesn't explain why they fictionalised the emotional scenes between Hughes and Hepburn . Often you can accept some melding of real people (like in Last King of Scotland where the Scottish doctor represents two or three Scots who were courted by Amin). But I do hate it when they make a real person act in a way they wouldn't. Or like The Doors, where Morrison ended up being fairly one-dimensional because Stone only focussed on one aspect of his personality and behaviour. Many people who knew him have written about the other facets to his character and his beliefs (while admitting that he was a monster when he was drunk and drugged up ). When you watch that film you wonder how he ever managed to make such ground-breaking music.
Another interesting fact-ette. Sarah Jessica Parker openly stated that she was playing the 'worst actress ever' in the film Ed Wood. The real Dolores Fuller in fact went on to have a successful career as a songwriter, penning 10 songs for Elvis. She also never smoked and was annoyed that she was potrayed as a smoker in the film. She wondered why Parker never asked to meet with her and find out something about her, especially since she was very fond of Wood, something which wasn't apparent in the film. (Great film, though) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 09:21:22
quote:
Originally posted by damalc
that's just they way it is with all based-on-a-true-story movies.
To differing degrees, though, and I still dislike all the instances of it that are not for good reason.
quote:
let's face it - truth isn't all that interesting most of the time.
To me it is - or explicit fiction alternatively is. The in-between I find the least appealing. |
| damalc |
Posted - 02/15/2007 : 02:14:40
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I similarly hate details being changed from the true stories/source fiction behind films (except where there is good reason), but unfortunately this seems to be quite a minority view.
that's just they way it is with all based-on-a-true-story movies. some that i know of include "Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story," "Friday Night Lights," "Blow," "Goodfellas," "A Beautiful Mind," and on and on.
let's face it - truth isn't all that interesting most of the time.
now, back on topic, acting performances by DiCaprio and Hounsou were excellent. i thought Leo's accent was inconsistent and distracting but otherwise, top shelf. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 14:05:26
I similarly hate details being changed from the true stories/source fiction behind films (except where there is good reason), but unfortunately this seems to be quite a minority view. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 14:03:22
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
(*The inaccuracies in the story are so glaring that I cringed through half their scenes together. He was a better golfer than she was and not the opposite, she would never "work a room" like that, there was no tearful break-up, she met Spencer long after she broke up with Howard, and much, much more. Even worse, half the time Cate made Hepburn sound like she was from the south instead of New England. Grrr! And what was that horrid haircut she had in the golfing scene?)
If it's any comfort, I thought she came across very positively.
No, it isn't much comfort, but thanks for trying. Just makes me hope and pray that if they ever decide to do a movie about her life, that I'm not alive to see it.
(Of course, I'll probably be turning in my grave enough to cause an earthquake but at least I won't have to watch it.)
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 13:45:48
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
(*The inaccuracies in the story are so glaring that I cringed through half their scenes together. He was a better golfer than she was and not the opposite, she would never "work a room" like that, there was no tearful break-up, she met Spencer long after she broke up with Howard, and much, much more. Even worse, half the time Cate made Hepburn sound like she was from the south instead of New England. Grrr! And what was that horrid haircut she had in the golfing scene?)
If it's any comfort, I thought she came across very positively. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 13:43:28
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Is it just me, or is Leo actually really good at this acting stuff?
After reading this thread, when The Aviator came on TV the other night, I decided I should finally watch it. Well, I do have to admit that while I'm still angry at how they portrayed my beloved Katharine Hepburn*, I do have to admit that Leo did do a good job with this part. Reminded me of his work back on The Basketball Diaries, which I think he did a very good job on. He went downhill as he became cocky and self-satisfied, but I think he's begun to redeem himself.
Now I'm not as adverse to seeing this or The Departed in a movie theatre.
(*The inaccuracies in the story are so glaring that I cringed through half their scenes together. He was a better golfer than she was and not the opposite, she would never "work a room" like that, there was no tearful break-up, she met Spencer long after she broke up with Howard, and much, much more. Even worse, half the time Cate made Hepburn sound like she was from the south instead of New England. Grrr! And what was that horrid haircut she had in the golfing scene?) |
|
|
