I, too, thought it did not suck. It was not spectacular, but it was totally passable, and I liked it. When I say it's not spectacular, it's not that I can identify specific flaws but that what was there wasn't spectacular enough.
I'm a fan of good vs. evil battles and such, so I dug the mythology. Once I get around to reading
Sandman,
I should check out the comics.
It's fairly competently directed, though I felt a lot of scenes ended on odd notes. Maybe I can blame the editor for that sort of thing. And it was much slower than I expected, which was good because it's nice when a movie takes its time but bad because sometimes it drags.
Question:
Gabriel's motivation reminded us of both The Prophecy and Dogma, but I swear there's another movie, maybe something recent, with an almost identical scene of a higher being of good expressing jealousy of God's treatment of human beings. It's not fair, etc. I can see it in my damn mind, but I don't know what movie it is. The whole part about bringing about hell on earth so that humans could be worthy of salvation was new, though.
Oh, and if you're not a credits-watcher, do stay, as there's a short scene at the end.
Huh. Did we know that they were remaking
Brideshead Revisited?
It looks like it'd be a feature film instead of a miniseries this time. Paul Bettany is a good choice for Charles, but I don't know about Jennifer Connelly as Julia. And of course, they *must* get Jude Law for Sebastian.
The trouble with redoing Brideshead (and I include Jude Law in this assessment) is that whoever you get for any given part will inevitably be second-rate compared to who they got for the Granada TV series. I mean how could you possibly beat John Gielgud for Charles's father (even if he was approximately 1000 years too old to play the part, even then)--or Claire Bloom for Lady Marchmain?
The whole part about bringing about hell on earth so that humans could be worthy of salvation was new, though.
That was a neat new twist on the idea.
While we'd seen a Gabriel that wanted to bring about armaggedon before, this one was doing it out of love rather than jealousy. Rather than begrudging humanity God's love, he/she/it wanted to make sure everyone lived up it
.
Saw
Constantine
last night, along with
Hitch.
We went with our friend who did props for the movie, so there were many thumbs up for the coin (hand cast at a foundry for $400 each), the Holy Handgun, and the various and sundry scrolls and bibles and whatnot during the film. Keanu was sorely miscast, and Pruitt Taylor Vince did the same old same old, but Tilda rocked and I was impressed with Gavin Rossdale and that guy who played the nerdy research dude. It's also a gorgeous film to watch.
Hitch
was a confection riding almost entirely on Will Smith's charm. Since that is considerable, it was enjoyable.
Saw
Aviator
last night, and
Collateral
yesterday morning. I understand precisely why
Aviator
is nominated for best picture, but it didn't really grab me. Well done, interesting, but not compelling.
And long, lordie, long.
Speaking of judging on own merits (okay, that was in Natter) -- I know nothing about how Hughes actually appeared, and only know Hepburn from movies, not interviews, etc. Were they spot on? They were good for a story that wasn't tied to real lives, but I couldn't judge them on anything more than that.
I really enjoyed
Collateral,
and realise there's no way Foxx could have got a leading nom for it, but he was definitely not supporting anyone in it.
Any Rent fans- can someone explain a scenario in which they do two days of filming for the movie in Santa Fe that wouldn't be ridiculously silly?
2004 -- year of the Foxx, hands down.
Any Rent fans- can someone explain a scenario in which they do two days of filming for the movie in Santa Fe that wouldn't be ridiculously silly?
He actually goes, doesn't he? Aw. Rent.
