Cool News
Capone alternates between fascinated and disappointed while watching Robert Zemeckis' A CHRISTMAS CAROL in IMAX 3D!!!
Hey, folks. Capone in Chicago here.
I'll start by saying that for as long as I can remember, Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" has been my favorite story of all time. I remember being some single-digit age, reading the book for the first time, and feeling like I was getting some message from the story that wasn't in the words--a message about regret, forgiveness and family. Strangely, I never believed the story was really about Christmas. Plus, the idea that you could see how people would act after you were dead fascinated me more than you could possibly understand. But most importantly, this was a ghost story with specters that were both scary and useful. Marley's ghost will always terrify me, even if he means well. Growing up, there wasn't a film version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL that I wouldn't watch--the more faithful to the book, the better. But when all is said and done, my list begins and ends with the 1951 film SCROOGE (I believe later video releases took the film back to its original name) with Alastair Sim as Ebenezer Scrooge.
My point in telling you all this is to make clear that even hearing Dickens' words thrills me to no end. Scrooge insisting that Marley's ghost is a figment of his mind caused by undigested food always gets me. The way he dresses down his assistant Bob Cratchit for wanting to take Christmas off is pure poetry. The way he pleads with the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come that he's a changed man is so desperate and honest. So watching writer-director Robert Zemeckis' largely faithful rendition of A CHRISTMAS CAROL was a pleasure at times, simply for the memories it stirred up inside me. There's also a certain fascination factor that goes into watching a film comprised of motion-capture performances by a handful of actors playing multiple roles, most of which actually have features that resemble in some way the actors themselves. This is by far the most realistic-looking version of this process that Zemeckis has been spearheading in recent years with THE POLAR EXPRESS and BEOWULF. The "dead eyes" are a thing of the past, but the fact that nearly every character has unusually rounded cheeks struck me as bizarre. Still, to watch these characters move, it's incredibly easy to forget sometimes that these are computer-generated beings and not actors in makeup.
That said, lead actor Jim Carrey (who plays various ages of Scrooge as well as all three spirits, including the one who doesn't talk) would have been the best choice for a live-action version of this story as well. LEMONY SNICKET proved that he's a man who can wear effects makeup and prosthetics well. He's the man with a thousand voices and faces, and he can handle the dramatic elements as easily as the comic, overly gruff side of Scrooge. What we get is a beautifully strange animated work that, at times, looks so perfect in capturing human looks and behaviors that it's a distraction from the timeless story. The version of this film that I saw was in IMAX 3-D, and some of the cityscapes and flying sequence are exquisite. But for every detailed tour of 1800s London, there are money shots of Scrooge flying through the air or running away from a haunted horse and carriage that act as unnecessary action sequences in a film about plot and characters.
I appreciated that this version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL is absolutely not for little children (not that any version really was). Marley's ghostly jaw nearly detaches when he screams. The Ghost of Christmas Present (perhaps the most stunningly rendered of any element of this movie) has what appears to be a massive coronary, dies, and turns to skeletal ashes. There are dead bodies throughout, scary moment galore, and a lead character that would rather see poor people dead than be charitable toward them. Be smart, parents, and leave the little ones at home.
There are some really nice moments in A CHRISTMAS CAROL, particularly the scenes of Scrooge's past, when he was an abandoned boy and young man surrounded by a few people who loved him. Robin Wright Penn voices both Scrooge's sister and his only real love (nothing weird about that, nope), and the scenes between them are heart-wrenching. Bob Hoskins is on hand as Scrooge's first boss, the jovial Mr. Fezziwig, Colin Firth plays Scrooge's nephew Fred, and Cary Elwes plays a legion of characters throughout the story. But it's Gary Oldman who most impressed me as Bob Cratchit and Marley's Ghost, and even Tiny Tim. Oldman has a bevy of great voices and personalities to choose from, and he pulls out a couple of gems for this film. The touches are nice, but something about this production just didn't gel for me. I almost want to watch it again with the sound off just to fully appreciate the visual landscape and really pick apart what I like and dislike about the human character designs going on here without feeling like I'm missing plot points.
On a certain level, if you are endlessly fascinated by the new technology that is going into making today's animated works look so groovy, then you really can't miss A CHRISTMAS CAROL. But if you actually cherish this story, you may find the entire experience frustrating and disappointing. In the end, I don't think I can recommend the experience of going to this movie, but if decide to take it on, you shouldn't have difficulty finding a unique vision to stare at for 90-some minutes. The film is a failure on an epic scale, but that doesn't make it any less of a curiosity and a continuing experiment.
-- Capone
capone@aintitcoolmail.com
Follow Me On Twitter
-
+ Expand All
-
it was AICN has become tonight
-
That review made no sense. A few compliments, an occasional "this didn't work entirely for me," and then all of a sudden this grandiose statement: the film is a "failure on an epic scale" Son, if you're going to use a phrase like "failure on an epic scale," defend it. All I caught from your review is that some of the visuals are distracting, some of the action scenes are unnecessary, and it's kinda scary. To me, the phrases "something about this production just didn't gel for me" and "failure on an epic scale" don't belong together. You want to proclaim it such, make your case. Otherwise your review is confusing and hollow, like this one.
-
so, what didn't gel?
-
Seriously.
-
but WHAT is the constant fascination with all the most interesting directors of the 80's/90's turning to this mentality? Honestly???
Something with a heart and soul like Back to The Future - Bob you just can't motion capture that. You can trick us flying cars and hoverboards but you need actors who you invest in.
I may check this out but I'm also at a loss as to why the world needs another version of this. Sure it's a classic tale but christ, of all the unpublished projects this gets greenlit. Niiice. I personally liked the Patrick Stewart version as faithful versions go but Scrooged with Murray will always be my preferred choice. -
Then why the fuck is there all this looney tunes shit in the trailers?! I just don't understand it. Why make a dark "Christmas Carol" and then have Scrooge riding a damn ice-shelf like he's surfing? ITs just retarded. At least, unlike EVERY other reviewers, Capone bothered to mention these stupid and unneeded touches.
-
what the?? i thought this review was quite positive and then he says the film is a failure on an epic scale?? whats fail about it?
-
Its extremely confusing. Based on your title we think you really enjoyed the movie, with some reservations (unlike Harry who had "trepidations"... idiot). But then you end your review saying its a failure on an epic scale? Weird man. Contradictory almost. Confusing definitely. Could use some editing. But what the hell, you've never listened to us before, have you?
-
That really doesn't match with the rest of the review, wich reads out pretty favourable.
-
That's why I'm not going to see the movie. The good stuff won't make up for that sort of crap.
-
The impression I get from this review is that this film will grow on Capone as he gets over the shock of it.
I also wish people would stop whining about mo cap films. They exist. They are getting better. Wishing they would go away serves no purpose, let's all look at this new method on it's own merits.
I know this thread has thus far been less mo cap hating than others, but I really wanted to say that! -
congratulations Capone
-
....so in Yellow Submarine, will all the Beatles have American accents and mannerisms too ? Zemekis should not be directing CG animated features. Hollywood is repressing talent.
-
This review makes NO sense, going back and forth over and over without committing to much.
-
Is getting really old. It wasn't funny when Eddie Murphy did it in the 80's, but at least it was kinda novel. Plus, Bill Murray's Scrooged should be the end of doing "new" takes on the story. It can't be topped. Do a faithful old-fashioned version or leave it alone.
-
Seamless use of Dickens' prose in the script, an excellent performance by Michael Caine and just the right balance between sentimentality and slapstick.
Don't get me wrong, I like Jim Carrey and he amuses me. But every time I see motion capture it looks stilted and freaky, and not in a cool Tim Burton way. -
I'll take it that you've never seen Alec Guiness in Kind Hearts and Coronets then? That shtick is far older, and will never go away.
-
you seemed to enjoy the heck out of this movie, Capone.
-
All the other staff are just IDIOTS. COMPLETE IDIOTS. And don't get me starting on Harry.
-
Larry David would be a fantastic Scrooge. Richard Lewis as Marley. Susie as the Ghost of Christmas Past. Geoff as the Ghost of Christmas present. Funkhauser as the Future. Not sure who Tiny Tim is though...
-
and is chock full of contradictions. What a surprise.
-
WHERE THE REVIEWER DOESN'T KNOW IF HE LIKES THE MOVIE OR NOT. WHY DO I KEEP READING THIS SITE?? IT'S A WASTE OF TIME! THANKS FOR WASTING MY TIME
-
I don't understand it - a failure on an 'epic scale' is something like Ishtar... I'm sorry to say this but you AICN guys are part of the online movement that seems to be misusing language. It's like Harry enjoying 'with trepidation' - but trepidation is something you feel BEFORE the event. On these talkbacks I see lots of people shouting at each other and not understanding each other, and it's often because people are misusing words. 'Hack' has become a generalised term for a bad director, rather than someone who surrenders whatever individuality they might have and does routine, dull work for money. I could go on...
-
Saw this and Variety's review is most apt for how I felt:
"Shortchanging traditional animation by literalizing it while robbing actors of their full range of facial expressiveness, the performance-capture technique favored by director Robert Zemeckis looks more than ever like the emperor's new clothes."
Couldn't be more accurate -
The final line of "The film is a failure on an epic scale, but that doesn't make it any less of a curiosity and a continuing experiment." doesn't jive with the rest of the review.
Can you elaborate? Like you, Capone, A Christmas Carole is one of my favorite stories of all time so despite reservations for the Jim Carrey treatment I was planning on going. After this review, and usually yours are among the best ones here, I'm pretty confused on what was wrong with it.
Can you elaborate?
-
Only when I went back to read others comments did I see everyone else was saying the same thing. I'm at work and I usually have to comment first and read later due to time/log in constraints.
-
therefore this review is entirely useless....is it bad or is it good? PICK ONE
-
When he says "failure on an epic scale" It can equally mean "noble failure" that would make more sense.
And yes, a Curb Christmas Carol would be funny. But then I love the fact Larry never really learns. -
...is simply the best...though the George C. Scott one is pretty good too.
-
I'm glad people are finally noticing this cunt's contradictory reviews. His reviews are always listing how much he enjoyed a movie, only to lambast it in the last paragraph. But he had never been this blatantly contradictory before. Fucking ass.
-
...are terrible. It looks ridiculous. And Jim Carrey's voice acting in the commercials is laughable. Typical overacting from the camera-mugging-one.
-
Believe it or not, it's actually possible for someone to like some things about a movie that he/she ultimately really doesn't enjoy as an overall cinematic experience. I was so distracted by the technology at work here (which is fascinating to me in many ways) that it completely distracted me from a story that I've adored since I was a kid (in other words, a failure to tell me the story in the best way possible). I realize you hate not being told what to think, but there's no contradiction here.
-
You are being very kind to Capone. In fact, 'failure on an epic scale' and 'noble failure' mean very different things. I wish the handful of people who write reviews on this site would learn how to speak the language. Maybe a little less sitting on their ass watching TV, and a little more reading books would help. The Oompa Loompas were right!
-
We don't need to be told what to think! We LIKE reviews which say 'this was good, but this wad bad'. But we NEED OUR REVIEWS TO BE IN THE FUCKING ENGLISH LANGUAGE. Epic = of unusually large or great proportion. 'Failure on an epic scale' therefore a failure of the sort one does not usually see. I.e, it was unusual just how much it failed to entertain you or interest you. How can you like something when you also think it's a failure? Because, if you liked it, then obviously in some areas it DIDN'T fail. Unless you liked it in a 'so bad it's good' kind of way. I know I will come across here as totally pedantic, but you are a critic, so you have to be able to express yourself!
-
Nobody, not even George C. Scott, came close to capturing Scrooge's bitter humor and curmudgeonly cynicism. And nobody else captured Scrooge's conversion so convincingly, so hilariously, so joyfully. How can perfection be topped? Myself, I gave up on watching new versions of A Christmas Carol after seeing that NBC debacle starring the otherwise sublime Kelsey Grammar. God DAMN that was awful. The last version of Christmas Carol I liked was Bill Murray's Scrooged. That's the second must-see of the holiday season for me: first Alistair Sim, then Bill Murray, then the Rudolph and Frosty specials. Classics!!! You never get tired of REAL tinsel.
-
It's motion captured in felt, foam rubber, smelly old gym socks, whatever. I really don't get the Muppet Christmas Carol love. The puppets all looked awful in it, especially Miss Piggy, who looked like Miss Hoggy or Miss Hippo (apparently puppet-building isn't as easy as it looks. Go figure). The muppet version is yet another inferior version of CC that only crystallizes the perfection that is Alistair Sim. It was also further proof that the puppets should have been retired when Jim died. The magic is gone, kids; now sit up straight, eat your veggies and grow up.
-
until I suddenly realized it was an epic FAILure.
-
ever thought you'd see this?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FITDM-ql5xY -
Sorry, but if a film's technological wizardry (impressive as it may be) makes it near impossible to follow the story (presumably the goal of all films), that's an epic failure. I'm expressing myself clearly and accurately. Is that enough of the fucking English language for you? Just because it looks pretty and the 3-D is neat-o doesn't mean I liked it. The film is one giant distraction; how much clearer can I get?
-
You're not defensive about this at all, are you Capone? Is it any wonder most of the long time fans of this site have moved on? Does traffic spike when you lay into the readers for no reason?
I don't think anyone was attacking you, we were asking for clarification. You wrote a review and then blasted readers for expecting to be told "what to think". I think we just wanted a clear critique of a movie most of us are very wary of.
If it gets me banned for speaking out against this behavior, so be it. -
I'd actually consider myself a fan of YOUR articles here. But the lashing out is just bad form. Who do you think you are, ...Mori? lol
-
But then what about this 'fascination' that the headline mentioned? I'm sorry but this last post of your sends a very different signal to your review, which says the film has 'a unique vision' and 'some really nice moments', and is at times 'perfect at capturing human looks and behaviors' - an adaptation that is 'largely faithful' and even 'beautifully strange' yet despite all these things is an epic failure. Your new review is much clearer: it looks pretty but the story is near impossible to follow and you didn't like it. Thanks for that. Seriously.
-
Sloppy work Capone. And your arrogant defensiveness speaks volumes.
-
Too busy trying to pick fault with it, more like!
-
You say the film is a faithful adaptation (so the mo-cap shouldn't distact unless you are a simpleton), you say how great the actors are, how realistic the mo-cap is, then call it an epic failure. This is maybe the most contradictory review ever.
-
On the Long Island Rail Road this morning, I checked out the New York Times and Wall Street Journal; the NYT gave Zemeckis' Christmas Carol a 'meh'---the script is apparently okay, but it's undone by the over the top bombast, i.e. The Grinch, Hook, etc. The Journal panned it, almost throwing tomatoes at it.
-
...a director like Cuaron, somebody who could tell a period story, but in a small scale, almost intimate fashion, with no mo-cap. Cast Anthony Hopkins as Scrooge, and there you go, you'd have a successful adaptation of Dicken's story.
Why do filmmakers feel they need to make everything into a 'thrill ride event film'? -
The review did not warrant the final capper of "epic failure." Totally off kilter.
-
I totally adore Cuaron's last three films - really, I think they're great - but having seen the monstrosities he afflicted on GREAT EXPECTATIONS, I think he should be kept away from Dickens.
-
Sorry to keep ranting but here's the thought. Any avid reader of Dickens will most probably track down the editions containing illustrations by Phiz. Now, I'm not sure if he illustrated A CHRISTMAS CAROL, but he work on LITTLE DORRIT, DAVID COPPERFIELD and many more are well known and loved. And the point is that they are cariacatures, they are not in any way photo-real, or attempts at photo-real. Everything is exaggerated. So animation, rather than live-action, really IS appropriate for Dickens. I love Dickens' way of drawing characters. When I came across someone like Mrs Gamp, I thought 'well, it's a marvelous comic creation, but bears no resemblance to reality' - then the very mext day I saw someone walking along the Strand who was exactly like her. His caricatures have so much truth to them. Now, I haven't seen the film, but from what I've seen about it, I love the zesty approach. I really loved the way BEOWULF brought that world alive, and I am looking forward to seeing this world too.
-
that's a pretty accurate description of capone's review. the review itself is mostly positive, with a few quibbles here and there. and then that statement out of nowhere. and capone's explanations of the statement in this talkback might have helped IF HE'D SAID THAT IN HIS ACTUAL REVIEW.
-
You really didn't hint at how bad you thought the film was throughout the review and then at the end...BAM! WTF? It sounds like you thought it was a mixed bag and then in the last line you destroy the film. Weird and not very well written review in my opinion.
-
after re-reading that review, not once does Capone say IN THE REVIEW ITSELF that the technology made it impossible to follow the story. i guess we were all just supposed to read his mind on that one.
-
You can get clearer by actually composing a coherent review! I read your review of "The Men Who Stare At Goats" before clicking on this one - and that was a well thought out, well compared, eloquently written review - detailing both the good and the bad as well as your verdict quite clearly. This "review" seems more like some crap you threw together because you had a Friday deadline. It reads as though you liked every aspect of the film - the story, the voices, the actors, the design - EVERYTHING except some random 3d gimmicks and that the characters have rounded cheeks. Round cheeks and a horseman's whip 3d gag make it an epic failure? You don't make it clear that the technology and mocap are what distracted you - in fact you praise them. The only place you've made that clear is in your quite overblown and smiting comments toward people calling you out on an unusually poorly written review from you. As a reviewer should well know, your points should be clear from your REVIEW - not needing this much clarification and defense in a talkback. Comparing this to the reviews of "Precious", "The Men Who Stare At Goats", and "The Fourth Kind" make it pretty clear that this review was a half-assed afterthought as far as quality, clarity, and thought.
-
interesting news, reviews, interviews and all of that "ews" stuff. I like Capone, Massa and Quint. So you might guess what I'm going to say: this site is a failure on an epic scale!
-
It's not that we're looking to be told what to think, it's that your review doesn't describe what YOU think, you talk about feelings and about something working and not working but without explaining the "what" or "why" all that well. Don't blame the readership.
-
What a pointless review. NO, WE DONT NEED TO BE TOLD WHAT TO THINK. Apparently, though, you need to be told how to properly write an effective review. And then lashing out at the people calling you out on it? Really? Go suck a dick ya faggot.
-
What the hell was that Capone? Seriously, I'm a struggling writer and I can still tell a badly written piece from a good one. That was retarded.
-
however the story has no heart. A lot of work went into the motion capture however Zemeckis failed to capture the essence of the story. To me, spending $100 million (or whatever it cost) to make a visually stunning movie, but then dropping the ball where it really counts, emotionally connecting with the audience, qualifies as an "epic failure". The film's ambition and pricetag puts it in the category of "epic"; the inability to tell the story effectively makes it a failure.
-
so i take it "failure on an epic scale" will be the new AICN talkback meme... whenever capone or someone posts a positive review, somebody in the TB will have to respond with "so you're saying it's a failure on an epic scale, then?"
-
Maybe make that the headline next time! Talk about burying the lead.
That being said, this style of animation needs to be used for an Alex Ross-inspired Justice League movie. -
I agree with most posters above, "failure on an epic scale" is way too hyperbolic to fit with the review that preceded it. Capone says the film was fascinating and told his favourite story, but some things didn't work. That is not "epic scale" "Failure on an epic scale" is Southland Tales or Spider-man 3, movies that dropped the ball from beginning to end with horrible decisions in all aspects the movie. Not liking character models is different from "epic scale"
-
if it costs $150 million to make these things, why not just film live action? Imagine the box office for Robert Zemeckis' Beowulf in live action with Angeline Jolie in that role?
-
To paraphrase Capone: "Eh, the movie was alright. They really improved the motion capture since Beowulf. Might be too scary for the kids. In short, I FUCKING HATE THIS MOVIE!!!"
-
That was a beautiful way to justify a badly written review while insulting the TBs. Sorry, Capone, that we are not as bright as you are, and that we did not "get it" on the first time. Reviews are not supposed to be "Synecdoche New York", Capone. You know, just call Massa. He does a pretty good job at that, at least he does not insult the readers if he makes a mistake.
-
Not as catchy as "Harry has chosen HD-DVD" or the good old "Hulk Hogan" ones, but yep, it'll be a AICN joke for about 2 weeks. I know I'll use it.
-
Funniest I've seen him in a long time. Went from crass absoutley crazy. Loved it. Especially when he attacked the tour tram. Makes me hope that he has another great comedy somewhere in the future. Sure, the last few ranged from mediocre (Yes Man) to crap (Dick an Jane) but the guy should try to get another R-rated comedy out there. I'm looking forward to Phillip Morris but have no idea what to expect from the Three Stooges.
-
The thing that strikes me as the most funny about this, Capone, is that though you admit early on that the film has flaws, the review feels generally forgiving and - dare I say- implies you enjoyed watching it, despite the flaws. But then the very end of the review comes with "The film is a failure on an epic scale" and it's like a total 180 from the tone of the review prior ot this point. Or, maybe you don't realize that "an epic failure" is something like the Captain America movie from 1990 or the Ford Edsel.
-
Does DM still do the same thing at that other site? I'll assume so, since his other old technique of blabbing about his son was in evidence in the ONE review that I read there a few weeks ago. I've been away from here for a while, so glad to see some things are, um, consistent.
-
So I saw CHRISTMAS CAROL. It's gorgeous, beautiful, stunning, vibrant, scary, intense, filled with dark imagery and a group of master actors at work - Jim Carrey has never been better, and all his supporting cast make for a fascinating viewing experience. FUCK THIS MOVIE - FAIL!
-
"It didn't really work for me...", but no real coherent explanation why; "failure on an epic scale", which is quite an indictment, yet not really supported by the narrative of the writing. You don't even get the name of the 1951 Alistair Sim version correct: it was "A Christmas Carol" (duh). "Scrooge" was the 1970 musical version starring Albert Finney. But I know why you called it "Scrooge"--cuz you're so f'ing lazy you got the (incorrect) name from IMDB, and I bet you never even *watched* it...Because if you had ever actually *seen* it you would know it's called "A Christmas Carol."
AICN--what a lazy bunch of hacks. -
Nov 06, 2009 9:58:14 PM CST
Um, he clearly stated that there were two names for the 51 versi
by mistermanreturns
Originally "Scrooge" elsewhere, "A Christmas Carol" in the US. More recently, "Scrooge" for all releases.
-
"but if decide to take it on, you shouldn't have difficulty finding a unique vision to stare at for 90-some minutes. The film is a failure on an epic scale," really bipolar. C'mon,then you attack talkbakers? Really? You are an idiot child.
-
Just watched the really well choreographed "Thank You Very Much" dance number from 1970's "Scrooge" - yes, MadEye, THAT ONE......damn, is it good. Especially compared to a similar number in the previous year's "Oliver!" - "Consider Yourself" - which is an overstaged, prancing annoyance.
-
Sheesh... it really is time for me to find a different geek coolness news site.
-
Nov 07, 2009 12:31:48 AM CST
Point is Robert needs to go back to making actual films! Not
by gqtaste
some f'ing cartoon that will never deliver or satisfy the majority of folks. This guy is too talented to wasting away w/ silly and unnecessary cartoons. He's wasting all those actors abilities as well.
-
Asswipes.
-
I studied English at university, so yes I am aware of the difference! :D
Thanks Capone for explaining the review in context a bit more. The story at the heart of it is of course a timeless one, but that doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be showered in 3D, motion capture and so forth.
I'm sure when Simon Callow does a reading of it he doesn't throw fireworks at the audience. -
Lots of unnecessary, pointless "action" to "juice it up" but really only serves to distract from the story. At times...especially during the big chase scene near the climax, it seemed like those scenes were dragged out to pointless lengths only to stretch out the running time to 90 minutes.
I just watched this tonight, and the whole time I kept thinking "this would be so much better if it were flesh and blood actors instead of CG run amok!" Zemekis may want to put animators out of a job with motion capture, but when you're exagerrating the features to cartoony extremes anyway, what is the point!?!? If Pixar had done this without motion capture, using standard CG animation techniques, it would've looked better and felt even more "real."
Try as he might, Zemekis' motion capture can't get all the little subtleties of an actor's performance down, nor can it replace the "warmth" of a good animator. The "glass eyes" are gone, but that weird digital stiffness is still there.
Having the actors play multiple performances look like a nice gimmick in theory, but here it was unnecessary and wore thin quickly--Carey's creepy mugging as the first 2 Ghosts was annoying at times.
Despite all this, Carey makes a decent Scrooge. Sim, Stewart, and Bill Murray are my 3 favorites, but Carey's performance will hold up nicely. Gary Oldman's performance was solid as usual, even if we didn't see the man himself onscreen. -
Really, that's the ONLY reason I can see for using mo cap in films with unrealistic character designs like this--good animators would've made the characters move so much more fluidly and seemlessly than what we got here. What's Zemekis got against the guys at Pixar? Does anyone know? Was he once raped in a dark alley by the people who brought us "Toy Story?"
-
Sorry - I didn't mean to get at you, of course you know what the difference is, I just thought you were being very kind to Capone in a 'he said THIS but perhaps he meant THAT' kind of way. I have to disagree with you about Simon Callow. Having seen his one-man Dickens show, I think that is he had any fireworks to hand, lighting them and throwing them into the audience is exactly what he'd be doing...
-
one is that hollywood is in such a deep crisis. that a number of studios are going to go to the wall. 2. arnie is being tipped to take over as head of the mpaa. whay harry isnt covering both ot these stories. is beyond me.
-
is he is trying to say to hollywood. making movies the old way is expensive. you dont have to go through a rigorous casting search, crews are limited, in other things are more scaled back. so i think hollywood needs fight back and to prove zemeckis wrong. but they need to do it quikly. if avatar does really well as the cameron fans are hoping that it will and will propell him onto the stage to be the big winner at next years oscars. the future of creativity will die on that night if he does and if zemeckis wins for best animated film. but i think that cgi movies were banned by the academy. so that is a chink of light there...
-
He did two brilliant books on Orson Welles, well (pun intended) worth reading.
Saying that though, I'd like to see a version of A Christmas Carol with Brian Blessed in it. Possibly as the Ghost of Christmas Present...or as Tiny Tim. There is not enough Blessed on TV, film or satellite navigation ("TURN LEFT AT THE NEXT EXIT!") -
$200 million is no cheaper than the typical Hollywood blockbuster, and early estimates peg the opening box office at only about $31 million. Not good. I think the public has found this to be unnecessary and unappealing. Now if only "The Princess and the Frog" goes over hugely, the future of animation will be safe... at least for a little while.
-
should be very nervous. not that he cares. he has eleven oscars in the bag. its not the geeks, not the trades, not the fans who will decide how successful avatar is. its public. talkbackers may hate the public and think them ignorant. but if the public are enticed to cinemas to see avatar. it will be a bomb.
-
if the public and i mean large swathes of them arent enticed to see avatar. then it will bomb.
-
he is too much of a loose canon.
-
I would't call this version an epic failure. It was not great, but it was pretty close to fantastic. Visually stunning, well acted, one of the greatest stories ever.... what's not to like? Maybe I liked it becuase I was able to immerse myself in the movie and just sort of accept the visuals. The main complaint I have is that it was not "Christmassy" enough. But that's only because I love Christmas so much.
-
i completely agree with this review, more that possibily any AICN review ive ever read, but for one detail.... i couldnt really tell if anyone was giving good performances, because the technology just dumbed down so much movement. I WISH this movie had been done in live action.
-
Nov 09, 2009 6:36:03 AM CST
"I realize you hate not being told what to think, but there's no
by lost jarv
I don't care if I get banned for this- Go. And. Fuck. Yourself. It isn't our fault that you wrote a grossly misleading and contradictory review.
-
this review makes want to be chargin up mah lazor
-
"The Alamo" from 2004. Disney poured $250 million, plus (with marketing), into that bloated film, but managed to sneak away without the "Ishtar" stain. Some bean-counters put it in the same category as "Heaven's Gate," yet it vanished without much notice. Amazing, considering its history (and its proximity to this site's "ground zero"). Perhaps its the power (?) of the Mouse House and Ron Howard (who abandoned the director's chair when his controversial script was nixed).
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 171 total posts 169 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 157 total posts 111 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 138 total posts 75 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 479 total posts 62 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 59 total posts 59 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 62 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 48 total posts 45 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 116 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 181 total posts 30 posts