QuoteReplyTopic: Off with Their Hedz!! Posted: March 02 2008 at 5:07pm
I wonder how many ticket sales for The Other Boleyn Girl were purchased by Western Civilization 100 class students who were required to see it purely because their aging professors decided to prevent them from spending at least a couple hours doing something fun this weekend.
I actually spent a portion of my evening watching, yet again, A Man For All Seasons which is currently available as a free selection courtesy of On Demand. It remains a cinematic classic full of magnificent imagery and a compelling story. That is not to say that no good movies are made these days, or bad ones 40 years ago...nonetheless, the balance seems to be dramatically different.
Then again, there was a time when movie theaters were palatial, and comparatively rare. Today's move houses are little more than hallways with seats with the typical charm and appearance of a high school cafeteria which just hosted the all time mother of a food fight. They exist on every other street corner, 12-15 screens each. Movies once actually had to compete for screen time, so studio execs were less likely to approve any piece of crap script that was tossed on their desk. Pardon me if I wax a bit nostalgic for the "good old days" here, which in most respects weren't all that good inspite of what those among us with a conservative political bent might believe. But when it comes to the art of making great movies, we've definitely learned that more isn't necessarily better.
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken
I kind of wish I grew up in a place like you're describing. I lived in a metropolitan city with one theater that had eight screens, ergo the selection of movies to watch there were quite limited. Unfortunately, the movies we would receive were determined based on how high the film's profile would be, so we would get any of the potential blockbusters--but that's all we would get. We actually didn't receive any of the films nominated for Best Picture of 2007, if that gives you any idea of how limited options can get. Right now I'm wondering if this film would have made it there.
As of this year, I'm no longer residing there, but it just goes to show that theaters aren't as exactly prominent in all parts of the country.
Henry the VIII, is so last week, dudes, when are they going to come out with another film of Cesare Borgia? ( The only one I've heard of had Orson Welles). Or Elizabeth Bathory. Make it happen! (Just kidding) Speaking of psychotic horny rulers, I'll admit it, I thought Malcolm McDowell did a good job as Caligula. I got the unrated version for Christmas. The movie was garbage, but I still say that if Malcolm had given the exact same performance in a film that was at least decent, he'd have been nominated for some awards ( The good kind, maybe not an Oscar, but probably a Golden Globe at least.).
The Other Boleyn Girl was not bad in my opinion. It was a little bit historically inaccurate. There are definitely parts that needed a little more of something (don't know what), but something. I do see how it can be a contender though.
Wow, what a boring movie! The film has one thing going for it: Scarlet Johansson. She shines in (almost) every one of her scenes. (The bad scenes were the ultra t/lame PG-13 "sex-scenes"). The other actors don't fare too well. Eric Bana came off as annoying, Natalie Portman would be a Worst Supporting Actress contender if the Razzies were held right now, but there's bound to be worse performances later this year. But, the worst performance comes from David Morrissey. Morrissey, easily one of the most shameless actors out there, plays the dull-yns asshole uncle, who starts all of this crap. While this is a step up from Morrissey's usual drek, considering that his other movies include (from most watchable to least): "Capt. Coreli's Mandolin", "The Reaping", and "Basic Instinct 2". Truly, the man has no shame!
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2 https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html Up-next: Transcendence
I agree with everyone who said it was boring. It really was, not to mention completely historically incorrect. Anne Boylen was actually a pretty relgious person and wouldn't sleep with the king because she was married. It drove the King to madness to want her and did all he could to get her to be his wife and in his bed. The real story would have made it a lot more interesting.
In defense of Natalie Portman, The only reason why she ended up with those 2 Razzie noms (As always, HeadRAZZ, please correct me if I am wrong) was due to her being guilty by association by being stuck with Hayden "I can't act" Christensen for the Worst couple screen couple category. As far as the movie goes I will reserve judgment until I rent the DVD, However at this point I really do not see it making our bottom 10 for any of the 2009 category Razzie catagory's. Of course I could be wrong.
Response from Head RAZZBerry: Actually, two of Portman's 3 RAZZIE Nominations were in our Worst Screen Couple category -- Alongside Jake Lloyd in STAR WARS: EPISODE I and with Hayden Christensen in EPISODE 2:CLONE WARS. But her third nomination was all her own, as Worst Supporting Actress for CLONE WARS. She didn't "win" any of the three. To see who she "lost" to for Supporting Actress, here's a LINK to Portman's "Awards" page on the IMDb...
Porkman sucks. She only started to show how much she sucks in Star Wars. That was just the beginning of a decline. Let me plead in short the case of Shortman here, the very site where it belongs: She peeked at 12 in "The Professional" and she hasn’t really been that great since.
She got an Oscar nomination for "Closer" although I never understood what the hell that was for. That part was nothing else but playing or an extension of her public image. I don't see what the acting challenge in that was. She was actually rather weak in that film, all of her co-stars were better than her, including Julia Roberts. And mind that the role of Alice was actually the most complicated one - at least I thought.
Her career has been more about nose jobs, Vogue covers and such brilliant statements like "violence is bad" - although she won't stop to shove it down people's throats she went to "Hahvaaad". She is just another Hollywood Lolita who once was full of promise and it now turned out that she's not that talented at all. The list of her kind is long. There is nothing unusual about that.
What is unusual however is how she still keeps getting credited for being the best actress of her generation etc. That's what I don't understand.
I could, of course, deliver you a much longer version of what I wrote here. This is just the beginning.
Please, forgive my poor English. It's not my native language.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum