Early ,'Objects In Space'
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
That's got to be Anthony Lane. That whole review was hilarious.
I love this line: "Jane Austen has been Brontëfied." And it's very true.
I actually liked this version quite a bit (that is, if you ignore the last few minutes). And I love Austen. Perhaps it's because I need to save all my energy and "How could they do that?!?" moments for historical works.
ETA: Happy New Year!!
(that is, if you ignore the last few minutes)
If you just stop the film after Lizzie leaves Mr. Bennet's office and the camera pans through the kitchen and out into the yard, that's when it ends in the non-US version. I saw the US ending (it was an extra on my DVD) and it made my hair curl. Otherwise I rather like this version as well, which I realised when I found that I could actually stand Keira Knightley in it. It's a lot more compact than the BBC Firth/Ehle version, but then it's only got 2 hours to tell the story instead of 6.
BTW, Emma Thompson did an uncredited rewrite of the movie, and I believe Charlotte's "I never was romantic" line is hers.
Was Miami Vice better in the theatres than on video? The shakey camera work, the muttered delivery and the accents all combined to make most of the detail in the whole thing incredibly murky. But it could have just bee our crap tv. Maybe it would have been better in high-def?
I think the film would have benefited by some small amount of exposition.
It was gorgeous in theatres, but I doubt it made any more sense. I do think it would look best (on video) on HD, in a very dark room, on a TV with a very high contrast ratio. (I really enjoyed it in theatres, but pretty much the only thing going for it was the cinematography.)
I think it was one of the new wave of films being filmed in HD with handhelds in fully digital format (rather than reels or tapes). Personally, I don't like the look of things shot in that (Colleral is another example).
Oh good I can skip Collateral. (Or is there a flick called Colleral?)
It's good, though.
I liked Collateral. It was good storytelling, irrespective of the way it was shot.
I loved Collateral. There was a quality to the dialogue and its delivery that made me feel as if I were watching a play more than watching a movie. Plus, I was able to forget within two minutes that I was watching Tom Cruise in one of the leading roles.
(Or is there a flick called Colleral?)
You'd never know I posted that at 3am our time.
I liked it as a film. The way it was presented took me out of it slightly, as it just looks a bit... different. It's weird, I don't know -- I actually like handheld shot films, or moments in film, as they can add an intimate touch to something (see also: Children of Men). It's possibly just the digital thing which is noticable to me. Or maybe I'm just wrong.