Lorne ,'Time Bomb'
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.
the physicality of the actor undermining a core element of the narrative
But what does her buffness have to do with being abused? How does it undermine that particular element of the narrative?
The anachronism I totally dig. But it has nothing to do with the abuse for me. She could have been playing almost any (non-Wilma Rudolph) woman of the period and I'd have wrinkled my nose.
I was completely distracted by Renee Z.'s musculature in Chicago (when I wasn't being annoyed by her crinkly face). Jazz babies simply weren't that ripped.
Angela's arms were anachronistic, but they didn't bother me. Neither did Michelle in Frankie & Johnny. I think both times, the actor managed to convey the pathos of the character, and that overrode any concerns I had about their appearance. Kind of like hair - a lot of times, people will be wearing hair that's mildly anachronistic for the period. It depends on how well they sell it.
I LIKE Renee Zellweger and I was completely and totally distracted by her arms.
I like Raising Arizona, too, but it's not my favorite of the Coen's movies. I never saw the Ladykillers, either, and I think I never will.
I was actually a little mad at them because it ruined my streak of having seen every movie of theirs in the theater when it came out. It wasn't even Tom Hanks (who I only have issues with on a movie by movie basis); it was the whole unnecessary remake aspect of it. Granted, I liked Jonathan Demme's two unnecessary remakes that came out around the same time, but somehow THE LADYKILLERS seemed gratuitously unnecessary.
I had to stop watching a period piece once because Cate Blanchett's arms were way, way too skinny for a healthy, upper class woman of the time period, and it pulled me out of the story.
The anachronism I totally dig. But it has nothing to do with the abuse for me.
What ita said.
This premise is almost entirely undone by the fact that when you see Buster in his shorts and tank top he's fucking ripped. He was in unbelievable shape.
Not entirely undone, though. Probably because they didn't go in as much for six-pack abs in the '20s.
The pole vault stunt is the only one he didn't do himself.
I saw The Ladykillers in the theater. It wasn't great, mostly pacing issues I think, but it certainly had its moments.
But I was severely underwhelmed by the original Ladykillers, so the concept of remaking it didn't bother me at all.
somehow THE LADYKILLERS seemed gratuitously unnecessary.
See Hanks, Tom.
Despite my suspicion that it's not as bad as its reputation (per Strega's comment), I just can't bring myself to watch Tom Hanks play broad comedy. Or drama. Or anything, really.
I usually don't mind Tom Hanks, but I found him very annoying in The Ladykillers. As in, I probably would have liked the movie with someone else in the role.
Yahoo has the "first 8 minutes" of Live Free or Die Hard. I put that in quotes because the clip starts in media res, and there's certainly story that comes before it, but probably not much.
That's my John McClain.