this is the kind of cover that makes me want to pick up CITY paper! keep up the fresh, great work!
Does anyone from The City enjoy any form of entertainment from the mainstream? You guys may start turning people off with you über negative, highly critical (I obviously realize this is a film critique) and often times snide pieces of writing. I enjoy The City for the most part but sometimes some optimism and general happiness is necessary in the media.
Amazing review! I loved the movie and also saw the way bayona pulls attention to other extras showing that there are hundreds of other story out there! Grate review of a grate movie!
I agree completely with the review too... the film is a mess which misses the theatrical aspect... the soaring athems were all diluted and Javert the most complex character in the story just wasn't there. I was hugely disappointed
I agree completely with this review, and I suspect I was robbed by the theater I went to. In the version I saw, heads were chopped off or shown almost completely off camera and it was hugely distracting. I want to believe that it was not filmed this way, and that no diector in the world would shoot a soloists singing and only show their chin throughout most of the song! So I'm guessing that the guy in the projector room screwed up the ratio somehow? It was terrible and a great disapointment to me. Much prefer the Broadway version, here!
Very good review and I pretty much agree with your take on the movie. However, I actually thought that the final conversation with Paul Giamatti’s character was the only part of the movie worth watching. Giamatti’s performance was the only thing in the movie that actually intrigued me. I had never heard of this movie until a coworker at DISH recommended it to me. I saw that I could get it through my Blockbuster @Home account from DISH, and so I decided to rent it. I figured that even if I didn’t like it I could just exchange it in the store for another movie, so I had nothing to lose. I actually lost over an hour of my time and quite a bit of respect for Cronenberg, so I can’t recommend it.
Tarantino's gross disinterest in actual history turns me off.
The smugness I can take. The pretentious self-congratulatory film-making I can tolerate. But the utter indifference to the nuance of an era, let alone a reasonable sense of accuracy, just gives me a sad. After the Jews-machine-gunning-Hitler sequence that jumped Inglorious Basterds well over the shark...I'm not sure I'll even bother with Django.
Auf Wiedersehen pardner.
LIFE OF PI -- overrated.
I prefer nice young Jewish actors like Natalie Portman, Logan Lerman, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Mila Kunis, Andrew Garfield, etc.
I have to agree with the above comment. Where is Life of Pi? This was the best film of the year.
Why is there no mention of the remarkable "Life of Pi"? Talk about ambitious--this was a book that everyone said could never be adapted for film. "Life of Pi" is a rare breed: a technologically groundbreaking, visually breathtaking film with heart. It was not so much a film as an experience. But Mr. Grella would rather cite overstuffed costume-dramas like "Anna Karenina" , which, except for Jude Law's performance, are hollow at the core. Everyone I know who saw "Life of Pi" was moved to tears and said that, like the book, it was a life-changing experience that stayed with them for days. I have read Mr. Grella's reviews for years, and I get the feeling that he operates from the head and not the heart, and that actually being touched by a film is low on his list of criteria. But to be moved, to live vicariously, to cry, to feel something--isn't that exactly why we go to the movies?
Might be the worst, most pointless film review I have ever read. You do know that criticism should move beyond "I like" "this is good/bad" and babbling about whether fans of the source material (who cares what they think btw- these are films, not books) will legitimize the series, don't you? "Cinema's timeless trilogies"? What does that mean? Why talk of the LoTRings movies at all? Get a point of view ON THE FILM ITSELF and what it is trying to say and speak from there.
As one firmly in the original movie's demographic, I completely agree with the tone of the commenters. It was blatantly obvious that the first movie was pro-America/anti-Commie propaganda, even to one who was in their early teens at the time. Thinking that the current movie would be any less flag-waving is laughable at best. Of course the movie's going to be pro-America and anti-somebody. There's only 2 ways to go - terrorists or North Korea. Given the lack of effectiveness of any terrorist attack outside of the Middle East since the London and Madrid attacks, North Korea was it. (Did Mr. G review Team America? What was his opinion there?)
So, Mr. G... was the movie any good? There are plenty of movies out there with political leanings I don't agree with. Doesn't mean they're terrible. Your role as a reviewer is to tell us if the movie's good. If you have a political opinion about a movie, I'm sure your employer would be more than happy to give you some column inches to address the issue. You can even insert your opinion into the review without totally letting it take over the review.
Have to agree with both of the above posts. If Grella wants to write op-eds, put him there.
Maybe you should do a political column, so there's a shot for a movie critic here.
Is this a movie review or a leftist political attack?
Perhaps Mr. Grella should spare his readers his prescient historical observations about Republican racism and stick to the theatric. The 13th Amendment passed the House with 100% of Republicans in favor and only 23% of Democrats. The 14th Amendment, granting full rights of citizenship to freed slaves, passed the House and Senate without a single Democratic vote. For the next 100 years, it would be the Republican platform fighting for minority rights, not the Democrats.
In fact, Democratic President Woodrow Wilson ordered the firing of all Negro workers in the southern Navy shipyards and the re- segregation of the federal workforce, previously desegregated by Republican Teddy Roosevelt. Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt vetoed the only anti lynching legislation to pass Congress in 1934.
Sidling up to current rhetoric and pseudo-intellectually giving it historical context only serves to expose the folly of M r. Grella's history education. Perhaps he should consider reserving his reviews to the follies rather than espousing folly.
If you take it from the angle that we are watching from Pat's perspective (which I presume is somewhat deluded), does the film make more sense?
I saw the movie and I though thaf it was very great. the problem with most and this movie is Americans can't deal with truth. they wants fanticy. Spilberg did an master peace. This ois The US of A that we have problems with race stll and we need to deal with it. This is 2012 not 1963. tomorrow being 49 years from one of the worse days in the US history. 13th Amendment, The Presidents health Care plan. The rest of the world has not this race problem We need not also to ingage within this same lower life way.
Website powered by Foundation