 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.176.62.239
The Boss Globe: "Blood Diamond" is about the moral conundrums of the international gem trade, but the movie offers its own form of barter. If you attend our lecture on Third World suffering and First World culpability, promise the filmmakers, we will give you Leonardo DiCaprio pitching woo to Jennifer Connelly and, yea, many loud and hair-raising action scenes. If you want to further examine the ethics behind your engagement ring, that's up to you -- but we sincerely hope you do.It's a solid deal as these things go, but it's hardly a steal.
[That's as far as I read.]
clark
- http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/12/08/diamond_trades_on_action_and_star_appeal/ (Open in New Window)
Follow Ups:
Not one character was redeemable. Whomever scripted this did Africa no favor. It paints Africans as homicidal baboons with no sense or direction. Leo was the least redeemable of all--he even killed his former mates with no qualms. The only good part was that he never got to pucker with Connelly. Honsu played devoted but foolishly hard-headed diamond thief and Connelly played an out-of-place reporter/tease looking for a meaningful story to "make a difference".Lots of action but I couldn't wait for it to be over.
Grits: "Rewarding, very, very, VERY REWARDING!"
...I shouldn't be writing yet because I'm still wiped out.Yes, it had those elements of white guilt and political correctness mentioned earlier, but for me and my buddy all that crap was swept away by sheer cinematic and dramatic magnificence.
Mind you, I'm criticizing it on my matinee scale, not my evening scale, but I think even at night this flick would still rate.
Can one actor be nominated for "Best" twice in the same year, for two different roles? That would be Leo DiCaprio. Holy Mother of God was this guy good! Nor were the lesser roles any less perfectly done.
The dialog was spot-on.
The first act was totally smooth and seamless; I was hooked after half an hour and didn't care whether the thing became a mess (it didn't).
The photography never intruded, yet presented an African panorama.
The cutting was likewise unobtrusive.
Only at the beginning of the third act did things look as if they might get spotty, but in five minutes we were back in the swing. (The end of the second act is marked by some natural humor.)
But be warned, this is a very, very rough movie. You will not be happy that your eyes have witnessed such atrocity. (I'm just sayin'...)
A bonus: We looked in on Apocalypto, my buddy at the beginning of a showing (he said it was great), myself in the middle of another, and I was utterly riveted; in fact I could scarcely, ah, rip myself away for Blood Diamond. Report follows.
clark
PS I happen to be in South Florida, where the exhibition (at least on the East coast) is usually excellent -- and that always helps.
I've rarely seen a more self-conscious actor than DiCaprio. He has the emotional range of a adolescent going for his acting merit badge. Scowl and a bit more scowl is his forte. His brow must get awfully tired. Plus, he runs like a girl.By the time he's 40 years old he will look like Ernest Borgnine. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose. It's just a funny thought.
Although this performance called for little of it, he is absolutely lacking in the humor that informs the best of his peers.......and there are many who are more accomplished.
nt
...the claptrap of The Last Samurai and The Siege.If I was dying to see it a review wouldn't stop me (I did, after all, see "Fur", mainly for Robert Downey Jr's performance).
But Ty Burr is a thoughtful reviewer, one who actually merits the the moniker "critic" and what he has to say is usually worth reading. My local critic I pay no attention to whatever, BTW.
nt
I used to review music and movies for a living years ago.Quite important to leave your personal baggage at the door - at least as much as you are able - so you can hear with fresh ears and see with fresh eyes. I got about as good at it as one can be. I WANT to like a movie when I walk into the auditorium. I want it - whatevever its leverl - to be "good". I form my own opinions - lack thereof has never been a problem with me - au contraire!
However, in this day and age when movies are quite expensive and much else is competing for attention (not to mention our dollars) I don't think it is a mistake to use a respected critic(s) to help one sort through the plethora of films on a holiday season weekend.
x
It's really easy to do.And you have to make up your own mind about things that way
In fact I am on record numerous times here, about how I gather the reviews and wait to read them until after seeing whichever movie.Thanks for the instruction though, teach.
clark
But if you can't figure it out. Please tell me what you meant be "first, I checked the local review?"
c
My "complaint" was your choice to read a review before going to see the picture so you would know what you were "supposed" to think of it. Your excuse was that you read the paper every morning and there it was, that darned review. By the mere act of reading the morning paper you seem to imply that you were compelled to read the review. It does seem to be the resaon you gave when I asked why read a review before seeing the movie. I then simply pointed out that as a person who also reads the morning paper that one can choose not to read a review of a movie one already plans on seeing and then go on to watch it and make up one's own mind what one thinks of it.I pointed out that this is what I regularly choose to do myself. Then you seem to loose your mind and ask me what gave me the idea that you read a review before seeing this movie. Are yo retarded? IT WAS YOUR FIRST POST IN THE THREAD THAT STATED YOU READ A REVIEW BEFORE SEEING THE MOVIE! Now you want me to read the last line of one of your posts to find some sort of explination for your lunacy?
wow
WOW
But I can't resist taking this just one step further, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.The idiocy on display here is almost too good to be true.
"You want me to read the last line of one of your posts to find some sort of explination for your lunacy?" Yes, because there it was that I clearly stated, from the start, that only the first paragraph and one more sentence of the referenced review had captured my eyeballs.
Yet, this poster has postured and sneered and falsified the evidence to make it look as though I had slavishly followed said review, when plainly nothing of the sort had occurred. Indeed he has behaved like the bullies in Apocalypto (of which more later), smirkingly thinking he's in control although the intended victim ultimately eludes his grasp.
Not only that, but the sadsack defendant seems not to have noticed that my own review of the the film bears scant resemblance to the Boston Globe's.
Very weak performance on his part, but vaguely amusing in its abject hopelessness. I give it a D+
clark
The Internet is full of people like your antagonist here. This churl and his ilk use the Internet help themselves feel important and better than others.So do I but I skip any reviews of movies I intend to see. It's really easy to do. And you have to make up your own mind about things that way
If that isn't ego masturbation then I don't know what is. Now he thinks he's better than you are because he can make up his own mind, while you, no doubt, would fail to grasp the meaning of this or any other movie without benefit of newspaper review columns.
You would do best to just leave these anonymous keyboard kommandos to the frustration of their unsatisfying lives, born of personal inadequacies and impotence. Don't become a pawn in their therapy.
You managed to form an opinion about me without checking with Duncan Shepperd first. BRAVO. Granted it is an idiotic one but a step in the right direction. "Only the first paragraph" LOL. At least you are amusing. I behaved like the bullies in Apocolypto? Thanks for the lingering scent of milk in my nose. That goodness I wasn't eating a cheese sandwich. "falsified the evidence"??? Yep you have lost it.
David denby in "The New Yorker" was more positive.
d
It's strange that "The New Yorker" would retain him AND Anthony Lane, one of the very best around. I spend every reception of the mag hoping that it contains a Lane review, and not a Denby review.
...(probably, the most) not too long ago attempted to counter my opinion of a certain movie by flinging The New Yorker at me. It was David Denby! I had to laugh.clark
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
