jazztalk.net

Posted: **January 19th, 2014, 5:58 am**

I watched two movies yesterday, Vicky Christina Barcelona and The Internship. I thought the first one was quite good, except that the woman who played Vicky did the Woody Allen imitation thing. His dialog is generally unrealistic enough without somebody badly imitating his mannerisms. She was awful, and the two Spanish actors, Cruz and Bardem, were so much better than the yanks, generally, that the whole thing seemed a little unfair. But it was an interesting plot with some nice twists and the scenes of Barcelona were beautiful.

The Internship was another one of those Bad News Bears; Revenge of the Nerds; Hoosiers; Animal House; Kicking and Screaming; Switching Goals flicks. At this late date, entirely formulaic and predictable. But it was also very sweet and occasionally funny. Vaughn plays basically the same guy he played in Dodgeball and Delivery Man, and Wilson was equally endearing and pathetic. Hard not to love them in this.

Posted: **January 19th, 2014, 8:38 am**

Agreed about the Internship, Walto. And interestingly enough, Blue Jasmine is one of the only Woody Allen films I can remember where the actors don't sound like him. It was a relief.

Posted: **January 19th, 2014, 9:13 am**

It is, of course, no big thing Walto but Vicky is played by a Brit, Rebecca Hall.

Perhaps a bigger thing is, though I have not seen it since it was in theatres, I recall her performance as being pretty darned good.. Generally speaking, she is a fine actor. Recently saw her in Parade's End and thought she was quite maginificent.

à chacun son goût

Posted: **January 19th, 2014, 1:27 pm**

mjb wrote:Perhaps a bigger thing is, though I have not seen it since it was in theatres, I recall her performance as being pretty darned good..

Yeah, I remember really liking her performance in that movie. Easy on the eye, too.

The Woody Allen imitation thing is something Allen has been doing a lot in the last 10-15 years. He casts someone to essentially be a stand-in for him. Sometimes it comes across as parody, and sometimes it captures the cadence and essence of the dialogue very well. I first noticed it in Edward Norton's performance in 'Everybody Says I Love You'

Posted: **January 19th, 2014, 2:33 pm**

But I've never read an interview with an actor saying that Woody coaches them to speak that way--in fact, if I'm not mistaken, the word is that he mostly lets people do what they feel like doing as actors...then again, if so many actors end up sounding like imitations, there must be more there. I just can't picture him saying "No, read it more like this..." and then imitating himself!

Posted: **January 19th, 2014, 7:49 pm**

I think it's partly a function of the words she's supposed to say. Again, I almost always find Allen's dialog wildly unrealistic. I think nobody really talks like that except Woody Allen and people trying to be Woody Allenesque.

MJB, thanks for that correction. I had no idea she was not American. I've always said that, as a general rule, Brits do American accents much better than yanks do British accents. And re you disagreeing with my assessment that she was horrible as Vicky, I admit that my wife completely agrees with you. She kept yelling at me to shut up and stop criticizing her. Again though, it's hard to separate the dialogue from the performance; regularly repeating the first couple of words in sentences doesn't actually make that stuff sound natural--except, maybe, when Woody does it. It seems like he wrote the Bardem and Cruz parts for characters sufficiently "foreign" to him that that style wouldn't have been appropriate.

Posted: **January 22nd, 2014, 12:36 pm**

Saw The Kids are Alright this afternoon. Very realistic characterizations and dialogue. Disturbing, though: made me fee bad for everybody. Best line: "I just wish you could have been....better." Wonderful acting by all.

Posted: **January 23rd, 2014, 7:37 am**

Finally, a reason for the frequent musical interludes in Indian cinema. You see, in 2012's Chennai Express, the thugs who are guarding a South Indian strongman's daughter speak Tamil, so the hero and the love interest are able to communicate their escape plans thru the Hindi language in the medium of Bollywood song. Aha! Two Montes.

Posted: **January 24th, 2014, 7:50 pm**

Granted, the premise is so outrageously weird that it lowered my expectations quite a bit, but if you can roll with the story (without really understanding it, as I'm not hundred percent sure I could explain in detail), And if you like super imaginative, visually stunning and literally beautiful sci-fi fantasy/action movies, then you're likely to think of it as highly as I did.

I was sitting there for about 10 minutes before the charm and the look really went to work on me. But from that point on, practically every scene and every shot, in fact, made me realize that this movie was made by filmmakers who said "Let's make the best sci-fi action film ever." In my opinion, they got closer than they should have with this premise. Certainly it is the best and most original looking film in a while. On that level, it ranks with something like the fifth element. If the plot had had that movie's depth, I, Frankenstein would be an unqualified classic.

And again I want to say: I'm not completely sure I understand the plot! But I was gripped all the same. I saw it in IMAX 3-D, and there were a couple of sequences where I found myself just exclaiming out loud "oh my God, that's incredible." It is by far the best use of 3-D technology I have ever seen. These people love making movies.

Often reimagining's of classic stories bug me. For example, I just saw the new Jack Ryan movie as well. I have no problem accepting a new actor in the franchise, but it's a little disappointing that they chose to completely reinvent his backstory and even the timeline of his life.

This is even more jarring and sounds much sillier. But after a while, the goofy logic kind of worked on me.

I predict that this will become a cult film eventually. And it will certainly be talked about by Students of animation for a while at least.

Posted: **January 25th, 2014, 6:06 am**

Couldn't get through more than about 10 minutes of Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie. A little too stupid, even for me.

Posted: **January 26th, 2014, 7:36 am**

Jazzooo wrote:Granted, the premise is so outrageously weird that it lowered my expectations quite a bit, but if you can roll with the story (without really understanding it, as I'm not hundred percent sure I could explain in detail), And if you like super imaginative, visually stunning and literally beautiful sci-fi fantasy/action movies, then you're likely to think of it as highly as I did.

I was sitting there for about 10 minutes before the charm and the look really went to work on me. But from that point on, practically every scene and every shot, in fact, made me realize that this movie was made by filmmakers who said "Let's make the best sci-fi action film ever." In my opinion, they got closer than they should have with this premise. Certainly it is the best and most original looking film in a while. On that level, it ranks with something like the fifth element. If the plot had had that movie's depth, I, Frankenstein would be an unqualified classic.

And again I want to say: I'm not completely sure I understand the plot! But I was gripped all the same. I saw it in IMAX 3-D, and there were a couple of sequences where I found myself just exclaiming out loud "oh my God, that's incredible." It is by far the best use of 3-D technology I have ever seen. These people love making movies.

Often reimagining's of classic stories bug me. For example, I just saw the new Jack Ryan movie as well. I have no problem accepting a new actor in the franchise, but it's a little disappointing that they chose to completely reinvent his backstory and even the timeline of his life.

This is even more jarring and sounds much sillier. But after a while, the goofy logic kind of worked on me.

I predict that this will become a cult film eventually. And it will certainly be talked about by Students of animation for a while at least.

Fixed.

Jazzooo wrote:Granted, the premise is so outrageously weird that it lowered my expectations quite a bit, but if you can roll with the story (without really understanding it, as I'm not hundred percent sure I could explain in detail), then something or other will result; you can make up your own predicate or use the one at the end of the next sentence, but you and I need to roll with my story as well as the movie's. And if you like super imaginative, visually stunning and literally beautiful sci-fi fantasy/action movies, then you're likely to think of it as highly as I did. (By "literally beautiful," I mean full of beauty as opposed to skimpy on beauty.)

I was sitting there for about 10 minutes before the charm and the look really went to work on me. So it's quite fitting that you have to sit there for a while before I tell you what movie I'm talking about. But from that point on, practically every scene and every shot, in fact, made me realize that this movie was made by filmmakers who said "Let's make the best sci-fi action film ever." In my opinion, they got closer than they should have with this premise---the outrageously weird one that I don't otherwise describe. Certainly it is the best and most original looking film in a while. On that level, it ranks with something like the fifth element---boron or aether, as the case may be. JK; of course I'm referring to a 1997 film. Capitalizing the three words in its title would have impeded my flow. If the plot had had that movie's depth, I, Frankenstein would be an unqualified classic. See? I eventually mentioned the title of the movie that's the subject of this post.

And again I want to say: I'm not completely sure I understand the plot! At least that's a variation of what I said before. But I was gripped all the same. I then had a mercifully brief exchange with the theater's security cop, who had dragged me out of my seat as I kept my gaze fixed on the movie. I saw it in IMAX 3-D, and there were a couple of sequences where I found myself just exclaiming out loud "oh my God, that's incredible." It is by far the best use of 3-D technology I have ever seen. These people love making movies.

Often reimagining's of classic stories bug me. (When I'm on a roll, I sometimes forget how to form plurals.) For example, I just saw the new Jack Ryan movie as well. Surely you all know that movie's title, but if not, Rita might supply it later, or you can go right ahead and Google it yourself. I have no problem accepting a new actor in the franchise, but it's a little disappointing that they chose to completely reinvent his backstory and even the timeline of his life, not to mention those of the character he portrays.

This movie's reimagining of a classic story is even more jarring and sounds much sillier. (Did you think I was referring to this post?) But after a while, the goofy logic kind of worked on me.

I predict that this will become a cult film eventually. And it will certainly be talked about by official Students of animation for a while at least. [Plus in the first paragraph, I said that "if you like super imaginative, visually stunning and literally beautiful sci-fi fantasy/action movies, then you're likely to think of it as highly as I did." So far, though, according to RottenTomatoes.com, only 57 percent of the audience members who've rated it have liked it, a collective response that's been symbolized by a tipped-over popcorn bucket. And 38 critics' reviews have been characterized by 2 Fresh symbols (a red, ripe tomato) and 36 Rotten symbols (a big green splat). Those stats have been changing rapidly; they've been getting worse and worse.]

So that's my post about the movie. As I explained to Rita in #250, "sometimes it just feels more creative and honest to speak extemporaneously." Sure, I could edit the posts after I've spoken extemporaneously, but I don't feel bound by the conventions that other posters bother with. And being more considerate and literate would pose a terrible conflict with not only feeling "more creative and honest" but also letting the exact results remain for everyone's benefit---or maybe just my own.

Notwithstanding my "fixed" version, which was born out of frustration, I thought that was a nice post, Doug. After skimming some of the reviews of I, Frankenstein at RottenTomatoes.com, I have to wonder whether the reason you're "not completely sure [you] understand the plot" is that the plot is incoherent!

Posted: **January 26th, 2014, 8:11 am**

Her, a very interesting and mostly well done movie by Spike Jonze. Also most definitely 30 minutes longer than it needed to be. Creates a new genre: subversive sci fi futuristc chick flick.

Posted: **January 26th, 2014, 8:18 am**

I watched Iron Maiden yesterday. I'm ambivalent about it.

I thought Streep and her make-up were good, and the movie made me curious whether Thatcher really was as intractable as made out to be. I find it hard to believe that anybody could reach such a high position without giving off different vibes to different segments, compromising, vacillating, lying, etc. That's just the nature of democracy and politics. The movie gives Thatcher very little of the "all things to all people" thing, which successful politicians usually need. OTOH, her sort of (libertarian, rather than traditional Tory) conservatism must have seemed really weird at first, not only to her colleagues, but to the nation, so they might have infused it with whatever appealed to them.

Otherwise, I thought there was too much focus on her dementia as a geezer and her relationship with her (then deceased) husband, a relationship I didn't really understand, anyhow.

Posted: **January 26th, 2014, 10:46 am**

Thanks, Rita. I have been at the NAMM show for four days, walking and dictating into my iPhone. It's rare that I have the chance, or the concentration, to reread and edit my comments. I will certainly take responsibility for some of the more creative decisions I make about my writing, but the iphone introduces many strange errors Regarding capitalization, spelling and other fairly basic tools.

Sorry forgot to put the title of the movie upfront. I think I said it, but the phone didn't catch it and neither did I.

As for Scott's comment, I think it's clear now that he has a tendency to bail anyway.

It's interesting-on another music forum where I hang out, I gave a similar review review and got back similar observations about the drubbing that I, Frankenstein is receiving at Rotten Tomatoes. As in the case with Rita, these observations were introduced by someone who would have zero interest in watching a film like this... unless I have misjudged Rita.

I certainly don't need critics to tell me what is enjoyable when it comes to movies. And I suspect that my prediction will come to pass.

Posted: **January 26th, 2014, 1:03 pm**

Scott Dolan wrote:That'd be Iron Lady.

Right, thanks.

Posted: **January 26th, 2014, 5:13 pm**

Different strokes.

Posted: **January 27th, 2014, 6:30 am**

Carmen and I watched I, FRANKENSTEIN this past weekend, largely because there was nothing out that we wanted to see and slightly because Doug liked it. Doug and I tend to like similar movies. I think we have the same lack of filter when it comes to not quite great Hollywood fare. But having seen it, I can say that it was terrible. Nothing good I can say about it. It's too crappy to even mock. My sarcasm, it would find no purchase.

Posted: **January 27th, 2014, 8:55 am**

I've really liked Aaron Echkart since I saw him in 'In the Company of Men', but he seems to be involved with some questionable projects lately. Brother's gotta eat, but it's a waste of talent.

Posted: **January 27th, 2014, 9:39 am**

Scott Dolan wrote:So zero Monte's?

Not even one made out of a bunch of dead Montes.

Posted: **January 27th, 2014, 10:29 am**

sozamora wrote:I've really liked Aaron Echkart since I saw him in 'In the Company of Men', but he seems to be involved with some questionable projects lately. Brother's gotta eat, but it's a waste of talent.

I liked him in Thank You For Smoking

Posted: **January 27th, 2014, 11:32 am**

Hey, Rita--

"For example, I just saw the new Jack Ryan movie as well. (Rita: Surely you all know that movie's title, but if not, Rita might supply it later...")

The new Jack Ryan movie is called Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit. I can see where you might have gotten confused.

Monte, I'm disappointed but different strokes. I thought the biggest flaw of I, Frankenstein wasn't the incomprehensible plot, but the fact that the movie was basically without humor. Lots of missed opportunities to not take itself too seriously.

Posted: **January 27th, 2014, 12:23 pm**

Jazzooo wrote:
Monte, I'm disappointed but different strokes. I thought the biggest flaw of I, Frankenstein wasn't the incomprehensible plot, but the fact that the movie was basically without humor. Lots of missed opportunities to not take itself too seriously.

You mean like pronouncing it Fronk en stheen? :silly:

Posted: **January 27th, 2014, 1:12 pm**

Exactly.

Posted: **January 27th, 2014, 1:27 pm**

Wolf Of Wall Street - Very well done. Funny and pathetic.

12 Years A Slave - It felt a little loose to me. Pitt miscast.

Blue Jasmine - Amazing performance and Allen at his finest.

World War Z - Enough with the zombies already.

Posted: **January 27th, 2014, 2:36 pm**

steve(thelil) wrote:
Jazzooo wrote:
Monte, I'm disappointed but different strokes. I thought the biggest flaw of I, Frankenstein wasn't the incomprehensible plot, but the fact that the movie was basically without humor. Lots of missed opportunities to not take itself too seriously.

You mean like pronouncing it Fronk en stheen?

It's really not a Frankenstein movie with Frankenstein in tails and top hat singing Puttin' on the Ritz.

jazztalk.net

What Movies Are You Watching?

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1

Re: What Movies Are You Watching? Part 1