I loved MUNICH, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, AND KING KONG. I thought King Kong deserved more recognition. I know one thing, it had everyone , even the guys weeping when I saw it. It's amazing that it ocould get that reaction out of me being that it was digital. But Andy Serkis was amazing as Kong.
Also loved PARADISE NOW. I was bummed that AFTER INNOCENCE didn't get a docu nomination. Toochis PS - What about those animation nominations? I thought it was great that none were digital. There is hope. --- Phil Edwards Cinema Arts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Looking forward to MUNICH. The fact that it got > trashed by both "left" > and "right", was accused of being TOO > pro-Palestinian, not > pro-Palestinian enough, and/or TOO pro-Israeli, or > not pro-Israeli > enough probably meant he had got the even-handed > approach he wanted. > We'll see. It opens at our local flea-pit of a > theatre this week and > making the exception to go see it. > > I'm one of the few people ( it seems) that saw > beyond WAR OF THE WORLDS > as a science fiction blockbuster remake of a > fondly-remembered but hardy > classic 1953 SF film, that used H.G. Wells source > for the same thing > Wells did - to make a political statement. > > A lot of people don't like that. They just want > "entertainment". Sadly, > thought-provoking films, are rapidly becoming a > thing of the past as > more and more people just want disposable eye candy > delivered in > fast-food size chunks for easy digestion and waste > removal. > > That was also the mistake Peter Jackson made with > KONG, I think. He made > a film for people that wanted a film to take its > time to tell its story, > people it with more fully drawn characters than the > original and give > plenty of bang for the buck, along with some ideas > and concepts that > were almost Swiftian in their concepts. > > Apart from the short attention span of many (most?) > film goers these > days, Jackson didn't consider that dreaded enemy > lurking out there that > Spielberg also encountered.. the Old Film Fart > Brigade (the OFFB) just > lying in wait, ready to hate any remake of a film > they choose to > perceive as an "untouchable classic"... and long > before it even opens. > > It's only a movie folks, at the end of the day. > Enjoy, don't enjoy.... > but don't whinge. Especially if you haven't seen it. > > Phil > > David Kusumoto wrote: > > >> Two words for this movie and most of the rat race > is buying it... > > > > > >> G I M M I C K & H Y P E > > > > > > Duane: Have you seen this picture? If so, back > it up. If you > > haven't, let > > me ask you: are you just proud you're not "giving > in" to what you > > feel is > > undeserved praise for a movie you had zero > intention of seeing > > anyway? I > > don't see how anyone who's seen "Brokeback," even > if they think it's > > overpraised (as I do), will say the gay-theme is a > "gimmick." > > > > Hype, however, has nothing to do with quality and > everything to do with > > marketing and critical praise that feels > disproportionate to what's being > > sold. I could make a case for it, but "Brokeback" > had danger written all > > over it before it gained any traction to get where > it is today. Focus > > Features, the people who brought you "Lost in > Translation" -- hardly a > > major > > film distributor or studio -- is responsible for > "Brokeback." I'll > > tell you > > what "hype" is -- it's when a film opens on more > than 1,500 screens, gets > > saturation TV ads by a major distributor like > Paramount or Warners or > > Sony-Columbia or NewLine -- just pick any film > that opens on any given > > weekend, finishes #1 its first week -- and then > disappears. That's > > HYPE -- > > that's the "rat race" you describe that buys > movies based on previews and > > ads BEFORE reading product labels or giving two > s**** about reviews > > and the > > like. That happens EVERY week. "King Kong" was > the most hyped film > > of the > > year -- but you know what -- despite its flaws, it > earned its hype and > > produced the best value for my $10 in 2005. > > > > "Brokeback" opened IN DECEMBER, very slowly, to > give it a chance to > > find an > > audience BEYOND those who were gonna see it > regardless. When it > > opened, it > > was on a handful of screens in New York and LA. > That's it. I may not > > think > > the film is great cinema, but as a person who > knows a little about > > publicity > > and marketing, the people at Focus Features are > geniuses. It's not > > perfect, > > but if you're a p.r. person, at least "Brokeback" > is nothing you have to > > apologize about when the boss isn't looking. It's > still a good film. > > Just > > not a great film. > > > > As for the nominations, the thing I found > interesting (and this goes in > > waves) -- is every film nominated for Best Pic > (Crash, Good Night and > > Good > > Luck, Capote, Brokeback Mountain) -- except Munich > -- was independent, > > the > > type of film first shown in "Landmark" art house > type theaters (Kirby's > > favorite, hooray!). The only "big budget" picture > "best pic" nominee > > among > > 'em, and the budget itself was modest by Spielberg > standards, is > > "Munich," > > which got mixed reviews. As Spielberg says this > week in Newsweek, he > > expected to be "hit" by the "right" by his film -- > but was shocked to > > be hit > > by what he felt were shrill critics on the "left." > Personally, I was > > hoping > > "King Kong" or even "Cinderella Man" would sneak > in there this > > morning, just > > to prevent the art house "snobs" (grin) from > taking over -- because all 5 > > best pic nominees were message or preachy films, > not crowd pleasers. And > > that's a downer to me. Even "Match Point" got > zonked, and it was Woody > > Allen's best film since 1989. > > > > -koose. > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > > > > From: Duane Nycz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: Duane Nycz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Brokeback Blues Backlash > > Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:27:18 -0800 > > > > Two words for this movie and most of the rat race > is buying it... > > > > G I M M I C K & H Y P E > > > > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at > www.filmfan.com > > > ___________________________________________________________________ > > How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo > Mailing List > > > > Send a message addressed to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > In the BODY of your message type: > SIGNOFF MOPO-L > > > > The author of this message is solely > responsible for its content. > > > === message truncated === Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
