I think Kirby, in a nutshell, summed up my feelings about Brokeback
Mountain. For me it was a very cerebral film and that was it's strength and
beauty to me also. I did cry and in some parts of the film very hard, and
I was in a theater mostly of women seeing a matinee so there was a lot of tears
and sniffles going on. I thought long and hard about why the film made me
so emotional and for me, personally, I not only felt the hopelessness of the
character's situation but also the struggle that still goes on today.
As for Kong, I liked it. While I agree none of the acting performances were
anything special, they were o.k., and I found myself on the edge of my seat a
few times and did manage to forget Kong wasn't real. It was a fun movie that I
saw with my nine year old daughter and we held hands and jumped in all the right
places. So, that adds to it's fun for me. Afterwards we came home and watched
the original King Kong late into the night. Coincendentally, we had just seen
the Jessica Lange version over Christmas. So, we are all now King Konged
out!! (for awhile)...........
Sue Heim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:50
AM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] Brokeback Blues
Backlash: DIDN'T WEEP KONG EITHER
Neither BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN or KING KONG caused me to
weep.
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN is too cerebral - that's it's strength and
it's
beauty - and, well, I just can't weep over a computerized
ape.
Below was my reaction to KING KONG when I finally got back
from
seeing it last week. I posted this to a few friends privately,
but
now you can read it if you're interested. Is anyone? These
movies
have a shelf life of about two days. And now that BUBBLE is in
DVD
and on the "big" screen at the same time, that shelf life is
shrinking
and so is the screen.
Still, we like movies do we
not?
If I get to see BROKEBACK again, I'll
post my thoughts about
David's ruminations on the film. Incidentally,
it ain't about
cowboys. Don Imus pointed out this morning, quite
correctly,
that
the two characters are sheepherders. Out here in Texas we
make
a distinction. Cowboys cut brush on their "ranch"; sheepherders
camp
out on the mountain
and make love to each other when things get
tedious.
Just got back from KING KONG, and I pronounce
it
overworked, overlong, and overdone. After a while,
I just got
the feeling that the enormously talented
Peter Jackson and his crew had
been overindulging.
The overall length of the film I don't have a problem
with,
but they spent entirely too much time on Skull Island
with the
rest of it. It's kinda kitchsy as it veers from wisecracking
and
inside references to the 1933 film to heartfelt earnestness.
Naomi
Watts and the ape own this movie. Jack Black is a movie star -
a
comic movie star - not very
special as an actor and he is miscast
here, I think. Adrien
Brody tries valiantly but I don't buy
him. There is too much
acrobatics and wildly impossible fights and
why Watts didn't
have her neck broken after the first 20 seconds in Kong's
grip
only Jackson knows. Characters show up and disappear.
What
happened to Billy Elliot? I wanted him
to get naked with
somebody! LORD OF THE RINGS much much
better. Too much of
everything here. Too many dinosaurs,
too many critters, too many
vines. Too much looking into each other's
orbs! Could have
been, should have been better. It's a film
very calculated to please
ten year olds, and better than the 76 version,
which I never thought any
good at all, but little of the magic
of the 1933. 1930s New York
looked pretty good, though.
Kirby McDaniel
www.movieart.net
On Feb 1, 2006,
at 2:40 AM, Toochis Morin wrote:
> 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.
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.
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.
|
