Escape from Elba
Exiles of the New York Times
January 23, 2018, 09:05:56 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: As you may have noticed, this is a very old backup, I'm still working through restoring the site.  Don't be surprised if you post and it all goes missing....
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 103 104 [105] 106 107 ... 300
  Print  
Author Topic: Movies  (Read 34204 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
jbottle
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2389


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1560 on: August 17, 2007, 09:45:26 PM »

Barton:  I couldn't decide if 3:10 was in the "dumping ground," but I'm guessing that the recent Forbes article saying that Crowe was the least bankable big star, combined with a hard sell, put it in the NON-DUMPING GROUND DUMPING GROUND, yeah, we at the studio all have our fingers crossed that the "art release" slowly roller will start the buzz, we love the film (in September??)...the little engine that could lie when you don't want to put your money where your cell phone is...
Logged
jbottle
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2389


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1561 on: August 17, 2007, 09:47:15 PM »

In other words, yeah this is our last big summer release [groan], we're trying an innovative strategy, have you seen Bale in this one, the buzz coming out of early screening has been great, but you can't make people go see art...
Logged
harrie
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1143



View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1562 on: August 17, 2007, 10:52:14 PM »

I love the old 3:10 to Yuma, despite the hokiness of the rain coming down at the end.  Glenn Ford was absolutely perfect as the sort of Cheshire Cat-y villain, and Van Heflin...well, the downtrodden farmer is kind of a trademark part for him. 

That being said, I'm holding out a little hope for the new one based on

1) Mangold directing.  Could be hit or miss, but he's more hit than miss in my book; and, beating this dead horse one more time, he made such a freakin' great Western with Cop Land that I don't see why he can't do this one justice.  I hope.

2)  Christian Bale.  I'm in the fan club with everyone else.

3)  Alan Tudyk is in the flick; if I placed him right, as the town drunk.  Tudyk is at risk of becoming overexposed this summer -- or maybe not, but I see that commercial for Death at a Funeral about every five minutes  -- but he was in Firefly/Serenity, and I'm contractually obligated to stick with him in his career.  But he's usually fun to watch, so it's not a bad deal.

That being said, Russell Crowe = Glenn Ford?  Uh-uh, no way, not on his best day.  I'm sorry, but no.

So the bottom line is:  I'm looking forward to the new 3:10 to Yuma, so it's toast.
Logged
madupont
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 5413


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1563 on: August 18, 2007, 01:10:45 AM »

So, harrie,

You're saying we should see the old 3:10 to Yuma and take a pass on the new 3:10 to Yuma (was that a.m. or p.m)?
Logged
jbottle
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2389


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1564 on: August 18, 2007, 03:10:38 AM »

Yeah, I feel your pain, harrie, but from the sticks, the studio hasn't really propped this one up with marketing, and that can be from lack of funds to lack of confidence to incompetence, but nobody is going to see this movie at all, period.  This movie is front-loaded as a bomb. 

That doesn't mean it's not a good movie of course, about half of the best movies ever made were never appreciated on the big screen when released, so I hope that this is one of those...and I could be wrong about the business end.

But the timing seems that the film will be a lot of light shown to very few...and I really don't blame the studio, you pay Crowe and Bale a minimum of 15 combined and a minimum of 50 for the production:  You should have heard about it before now or it's a "we give up," but I always hate when you have talent and money and no balls on the marketing side because about half the time you're wrong, as a suit, as to the quality of the film, but you know in your suit of suits that even if it really is actually good, nobody will go see it unless you tell them that it's the best thing since sliced bread.  Which evidently it ain't. 

It may be this year's:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405676/

Which was like a pebble never thrown into the middle of the ocean, and a hell of a lot of work behind, and talent...

Once people start walking around in front of a camera, I guess, sometimes the idea is good, sometimes bad, sometimes you make the best of what you don't really have.

By the way, coincidentally, I just noticed that it's 3:10 or thereabouts.
Logged
harrie
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1143



View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1565 on: August 18, 2007, 08:56:35 AM »

So, harrie,

You're saying we should see the old 3:10 to Yuma and take a pass on the new 3:10 to Yuma (was that a.m. or p.m)?

Not necessarily; I think the new one has a lot going for it.  But I also think there was almost nothing wrong with the old one, and it could always use another viewing.  Plus,  jbottle brings up an extremely valid point about remaking great older films where the remake is actually pretty good but just doesn't work, or gets lost, or whatever. 

Personally, unless I find myself with lots of time on my hands, I'll probably wait for the video of the remake and do a comparison then.  And I think anyone else should do exactly what they want, 3:10 to Yuma-wise.  If you mean "I'm looking forward to it, so it's toast" -- my taste tends to run counter to box office results; so if I like the flick, it's usually doomed money-wise.

PM. IIRC they snuck Glenn Ford into town in the middle of the night to catch the train the next day.  And in the shootout near the end, there are cattle being driven around and stuff.

jbottle, you're likely right as far as the lack of marketing support.  But I can also picture the studio exec guys saying "You want marketing money for a Western?"  despite who's in it. So if the picture holds up quality-wise, I hope it overcomes the marketing non-blitz.
Logged
barton
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2015


View Profile Email

Ignore
« Reply #1566 on: August 18, 2007, 10:35:38 AM »

Crowe will fill some seats, and most of those warm bodies won't have seen the original, won't be making parallels to Glenn Ford or anyone else.  Crowe will have a quick draw, honed by practice grabbing and hurling telephones.

Logged

"Nothing more foolish than a man chasing his hat!"
Dzimas
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4500


I thought you said your name was Nobody.


View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1567 on: August 18, 2007, 11:25:33 AM »

Never could see anything in Glenn Ford.
Logged
harrie
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1143



View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1568 on: August 18, 2007, 12:52:43 PM »

I like the way Ford played a number of his parts in an understated manner.  For example, his outlaw character in 3:10 wasn't all that outlawish.  He was polite with his captors, but you knew that underneath he was just biding his time, waiting for his gang to figure things out and come get him.  Granted, a lot of that is in the writing; but you take that writing and put it in the wrong actor's hands, and you get a totally different and IMO much less sinister interpretation. 

Ford's strength in interpreting the outlaw part was that he was reasonable, quiet -- sympathizing with the difficulty of making a living by farming and offering Heflin some very badly needed money to look the other way and let him escape.  He almost seduced you into believing he was just a regular guy who got caught in a small-town speedtrap or something.  Then he hints at the Grinch-like smile, and you realize he's just playing you and will take you down the first chance you give him. I don't know if I'd call it subtle exactly; but whatever it is, I like the way he plays it. 

I found some of the same qualities, maybe played a little differently, in his role in Gilda.   Hey, to each his own, but count me in as a Ford fan.
Logged
Dzimas
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4500


I thought you said your name was Nobody.


View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1569 on: August 18, 2007, 01:08:23 PM »

Understated in the same way Harrison Ford plays understated roles?  I just think it was because it was the only way Ford knew how to act.
Logged
harrie
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1143



View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1570 on: August 18, 2007, 02:40:54 PM »

To me, the two Fords are poles apart.  But again, to each his own.  There are plenty of actors about whom others rave, and I just don't get what the big deal is, so there you go.
Logged
oilcanboyd23
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1613



View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1571 on: August 18, 2007, 06:30:38 PM »


1) Mangold directing.  Could be hit or miss, but he's more hit than miss in my book; and, beating this dead horse one more time, he made such a freakin' great Western with Cop Land that I don't see why he can't do this one justice.  I hope.

2)  Christian Bale.  I'm in the fan club with everyone else.

3)  Alan Tudyk is in the flick; if I placed him right, as the town drunk.  Tudyk is at risk of becoming overexposed this summer -- or maybe not, but I see that commercial for Death at a Funeral about every five minutes  -- but he was in Firefly/Serenity, and I'm contractually obligated to stick with him in his career.  But he's usually fun to watch, so it's not a bad deal.

That being said, Russell Crowe = Glenn Ford?  Uh-uh, no way, not on his best day.  I'm sorry, but no.

So the bottom line is:  I'm looking forward to the new 3:10 to Yuma, so it's toast.

1. Word
2. Word - check out "All The Little Animals" (1998) when you get a chance
3. Word - Tudyk's 3 minutes on-screen was BY FAR the best thing about "Knocked Up", as an E! network executive.

Russell Crowe is anywhere from around 1.5 to 1.7 Glenn Fords, i.e., fluctuating from 270-305 lb, depending on the time of day. 
« Last Edit: August 18, 2007, 06:34:31 PM by oilcanboyd23 » Logged
nytempsperdu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 402


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1572 on: August 18, 2007, 07:04:24 PM »

Quote
More dumbing down by not using 18th century composers.  Bad enough that movies are not accurate in portraying real life people but give kids a chance to hear classical music of that period.  They get enough shit on the radio.
 

I'm sorry, I missed the part about 18th C compositions being more intelligent than those of other Cs, as well as the obligation of movies to be accurate in portraying "real life people."  Marie Antoinette was not a documentary and as far as I know, no claims to historical accuracy were made.  It was a rather compelling story set in a place I've never seen and most likely won't see, and if I do it certainly won't be with those trappings.   When historians disagree (which can spring from having too much or too little information to interpret) about real life people, it's hard to see how makers of popular entertainment would have some special line to the truth not vouchsafed to anyone else. 

Whether kids would have gone to see the movie without the contemporary hook, maybe, but I have me doubts.  Whether some who see it are encouraged to find out more about the subject, could be.  Some who went for one thing may have come away with more, which I see as pretty much a good thing.   
Logged
madupont
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 5413


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1573 on: August 18, 2007, 07:38:47 PM »

On the other hand, nytempsperdu, what it does is falsify history to a generation that apparently has nobody to give them a clue what it has to do with where they are at.

Here we are sitting in what would be one of the all time great fiascos of history and nobody had a clue?

Maybe not  as great as the then oncoming Napoleonic thunder, but then again, maybe something else we should be aware of before it gives us shocks and awe.

By the way, I found that young people really related to that back during Fahrenheit 9/11, and that really surprised me.

But I did see that Ms.Coppola was just ego-tripping her poor little confused and misunderstood child of the new privileged, without even having to go see the movie.  I liked her shots well enough that showed up in the nytimes to plug the film.
Logged
jbottle
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2389


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1574 on: August 19, 2007, 04:18:24 AM »

No, people intentionally don't go see the new Russell Crowe movie now, I don't know why, but they go, you know what I'm not going to do today...
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 103 104 [105] 106 107 ... 300
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!