| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 12/19/2006 : 09:53:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
It's been a wank year for films, and Marie Antoinette was definitely one of the better ones.
No chance. I cannot think of many Oscar contenders yet, but there have been numerous films coming out of which I have felt quite exhilarated. I don't think that Marie Antoinette did that for many people. |
 |
|
|
Ali 
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 09:56:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I don't think that Marie Antoinette did that for many people.
Yes, but, to quote Phil Connors, "people like blood sausage, too. People are morons."
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 10:04:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
Yes, but, to quote Phil Connors, "people like blood sausage, too. People are morons."
Yes, I suppose that could account for some people thinking that that film was one of the best of the year.  |
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 10:14:49
|
Sorry, I didn't catch that; I was too busy thinking of Kirsten Dunst in a see through.
Gotta do something with me working day...
|
|
|
|
Please Kill Me Now 
"Need my dopamine fix!"
|
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 12:00:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I don't know if disliking a film, regardless of its critical panning, makes someone a sheep. I didn't think it was relatively weak, I thought it was incredibly weak, as much as I like seeing Kirsten Dunst in see through tops.
Critical panning? I take it that you didn't read the reviews by Roger Ebert, Andrew Sarris, Stephanie Zacharek, and Peter Travers, to name just a handful.
|
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 12:10:07
|
That's one big hand.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 12:17:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Please Kill Me Now
Critical panning? I take it that you didn't read the reviews by Roger Ebert, Andrew Sarris, Stephanie Zacharek, and Peter Travers, to name just a handful.
I for one haven't read a single review of it. It was simply at the weak end of the many films that I have seen this year.
By the way, I find it an extraordinary choice that you would go to the trouble of making your post Times New Roman, the blandest font known to man. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 12/19/2006 12:17:46 |
|
|
|
Beanmimo 
"August review site"
|
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 12:52:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Please Kill Me Now
Critical panning? I take it that you didn't read the reviews by Roger Ebert, Andrew Sarris, Stephanie Zacharek, and Peter Travers, to name just a handful.
I for one haven't read a single review of it. It was simply at the weak end of the many films that I have seen this year.
By the way, I find it an extraordinary choice that you would go to the trouble of making your post Times New Roman, the blandest font known to man.
Now Sal that's just below the belt, not only are you insulting a favourite movie but now you are attacking PKMN's font
[insert sarcastic smiley here] |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 17:08:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Please Kill Me Now
Critical panning? I take it that you didn't read the reviews by Roger Ebert, Andrew Sarris, Stephanie Zacharek, and Peter Travers, to name just a handful.
You'd be right, as I assume they are all American critics, and I'm not an American. Having a quick gander at Rotten Tomatoes, which collates all the US paper and online reviews it looks like opinion was polarised - the critical summary averages out at 53%, which according to their system makes it "Rotten". So not exactly the critical darling that you paint. Frankly someone somewhere is going to love any piece of crap - even "Texas Chainsaw: the Beginning" will have its advocates. Marie Antoinette of course wasn't that bad, it was beautifully shot and a few of the performances were solid, but on the whole I just thought it was slow and dull, uninvolving, undramatic.
By the way, you mention Roger Ebert, a critic I know who is highly regarded in the US for some reason even though he judges things on the position of his thumbs, his reviewing partner Richard Roeper says "It�s very pretty and occasionally amusing but also dreadfully dull for long, long stretches." |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 17:28:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
It's been a wank year for films, and Marie Antoinette was definitely one of the better ones.
This sort of surprises me - I think it's been a pretty good year for film. Of course it all depends on what you look for in a film. If you judge a year of cinema purely on the mainstream (X Men 3, Superman Returns, The Da Vinci Code, Mission Impossible 3 etc) most of the blockbusters are going to be wank with a few exceptions. Interesting thing is "M.A" is more of an arthouse independent but you're not considering some great movies that came out this year. For me films like Pan's Labyrinth, Little Miss Sunshine, The Departed, The Last King of Scotland and United 93 all excelled. |
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 12/20/2006 : 13:14:11
|
quote:
Pan's Labyrinth, Little Miss Sunshine, United 93
Absolutely brilliant. All three.
quote:
The Departed
If our reviews did not have to pertain to the films at all, my review for The Departed would be:
WANK, WANK, FUCKING WANK!
quote:
The Last King of Scotland
I haven't seen it yet.
That's what? Three? Apart from them, "The Descent" was also great, as were "Man Push Cart" and "The Queen." And that's pretty much it.
I don't bind myself by the mainstream in the least, but considering only that type of fair, a comparison with even last year is depressing in the witness it bears to the mediocrity of this year's crop.
|
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 12/20/2006 : 19:43:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
If our reviews did not have to pertain to the films at all, my review for The Departed would be:
WANK, WANK, FUCKING WANK!
I guess it didn't float your boat then? I will say it had a long way to go to live up to "Infernal Affairs", and it was a shame that I knew every set-piece in advance because of my familiarity with that film, and it didn't feel much like a classic Scorcese movie of old, but it was exciting, involving and most surprisingly really very funny. Anyway, the sheer scenery chewy goodness of Nicholson on top form, alongside some solid turns from Damon and Dicaprio, as well as excellent supporting work from Baldwin, Sheen and Wahlberg held it for me. Ok, so Ray Winstone was totally miscast, but that's a minor gripe in an otherwise brilliant cast.
quote:
That's what? Three? Apart from them, "The Descent" was also great, as were "Man Push Cart" and "The Queen." And that's pretty much it.
Feel like I'm shooting myself in the foot a bit here, but "The Descent" was '05. So with the other two that's 5 films you rated this year. None of the mainstream movies worked for you? I liked X-Men 3 at least.
quote:
I don't bind myself by the mainstream in the least, but considering only that type of fair, a comparison with even last year is depressing in the witness it bears to the mediocrity of this year's crop.
Tricky really, because our "year" in movies doesn't reflect the actual release date; as a result all the oscar contenders from 2005 I saw in the first three months of this year - which include some great films - Munich, Good Night and Good Luck, Walk the Line, Brokeback Mountain, Constant Gardener. Although they aren't 2006 movies, they are all movies from this year to me. For that reason this year has felt like a really strong one, not to mention some fo the best independents in ages - Brick, The Beat My Heart Skipped, Lady Vengeance, Three Burials, Squid and the Whale, The Proposition - I saw them all on first release this year. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 02:42:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Please Kill Me Now
[navy][size=4][font=Times New Roman]Marie Antoinette was not a "relatively weak film", as you put it, Salopian.
Aesthetically, it was fine, but not as good as I expected, and not good enough to compensate for the lack of plot. I've so far seen 97 features at the cinema this year, and I would say that it was in the bottom quarter. I am very easily satisfied by films, so for me to find fault with one is saying something. I would think I gave it 4/5, but I give very few films less than that.
I have now ranked my films for 2006 and this one came 92nd out of 108. (N.B. Since the above post I have regauged my scoring system, so many films got downgraded, including this one to a low 3/5.) |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 03:13:52
|
| Which one was first? Oh, that's right... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Marie Antoinette! Marie Antoinette!
