Have we not had a thread about this yet?
I thought it dragged. The violence was rather graphic, which was about the only thing to hold my attention, and surprisingly Josh Hartnett wasn't even close to being the shittest thing in it.
Fiona Shaw was ATROCIOUS - worst thing in it by far. Hilary Swank was wooden (and I'm not just saying that). I can't believe that the whole premise of Swank's character is that she's supposed to be a lookalike of the murdered woman the story revolves around, and they look NOTHING alike other than that they both have long brown hairMia Kirshner playing the murdered girl in flashbacks/films was very good though.
Apparently in the book (the friend I went with had read it) the girl playing Martha Linscott is supposed to be fat, hence a line about her being the genius of the sisters while Madeleine (Swank) is the beauty. Only Rachel Miner playing Martha is 10 times prettier.
Aaron Eckhart was fine but has been better. Scarlett Johansson's acting was too obvious. I can't see this getting (m)any Oscar nods. It was just trying too hard to be "noirish", but it spent far too long on really insignificant things and not long enough on key plot points - why did we need about 10 minutes of a silly boxing match and *spoiler*almost NO mention of the guy who was revealed as the killer so you can barely work out why she was killed in the first place?*spoiler*
Last edited by Ellie; 18-09-2006 at 02:54 PM.
I'm a huge DePalma fan and loved "L.A. Confidential" so was really looking forward to this despite the presence of Hilary Plank. Most of the reviews are praising it's stylishness but are very critical of everything else so I dunno whether to go or just wait for the DVD
Who is the young actress Fiona Shaw is going out with again? I always forget, and it's the ONLY interesting thing about her.
Saffron Burrows?
Last edited by VoR; 18-09-2006 at 10:45 PM.
That's the one.
And that's only interesting for a nano second
STOP BASHING THE SWANK.
Put in a good performance for once and we'll stop bashing her
That's ridiculous, you don't win two Oscars by giving bad performances. Both of her winners were at least 'good' performances, maybe not deserving (in your eyes), but certainly not bad.
She's been getting good reviews for her performance in this movie too - at least she DID in The Times. (Or maybe it was the Guardian...)
They be wrong.
this was shot here and as a result the papers were FILLED with stories about the cast
scarlett has become universally HATED here, cause she was rumoured to act like a haughty bicth and had some crazy demands about press not taking any pics of her
the best song wasn't a single
Elbob, YOU BE WRONG.
The entire film is just a bit meh. Disappointing for a De Palma (who admittedly has made a few mistakes in the past too) flick. Some nice visual flourishes though.
I adore Scarlett but her performance left me strangely cold. Hilary Swank is nowhere near as bad as Ellie (as usual) is making her out to be though. My biggest gripe is that apart from Eckhart, none of the actors are lived-in enough for the roles that they are playing, particularly Josh Hartnett.
Last edited by Edward; 19-09-2006 at 05:53 PM.
SURELY you must agree that Fiona Shaw stood out like a sore thumb though.
Yes. Hammy enough to turn my stomach.
Fiona Shaw is with Saffron Burrows?!? Is that some kind of twisted JOKE?
I fucking hate Hilary Wank. And I hate Scarlett Johannsen marginally LESS.
Well I saw this last night and I can genuinely say that I thought Swank was VERY good. Acting masterclass compared to the awful JOhannson and Eckhart performances. Hartnett was okay I guess. But Mia Krisshner STOLE THE SHOW. She was mesmerising.
Sadly it's a very shit film overall.
Swank would have to be giving an acting masterclass if she actually pulled off being some kind of 'femme fatale'.
She was an absolutely fine femme fatale! And I thought in some bits she was really really pretty.
Crappy film, but I gotta admit, Swank was LAUGHABLE!
i agree
This made me laugh because it's so TRUE.Originally Posted by VoR
I have to defend Wank in one respect though. I kinda felt she was SUPPOSED to be wooden. She was playing one of those film-star Hollywood types of the 50s that DID act wooden. Smiled they were supposed to and otherwise pouted for the world. I think she did that fairly well - and of the female cast hers wAnd thas the only role that had the material to be Oscar worthy - she did OK with it, but nothing exceptional... Much like her previous winning performances, so expect a 3rd gong for her then...
Eckhart and Johannsen were both OTT with everything they got. Hartnett was surprisingly not bad - but someone oughta pay for him to get some treatment to widen those little specks he calls eyes.
Shaw was APPALLING - completely miscast. Laughable to the point that whenever she was on screen (which was thankfully not that much) we laughed from beginning to end, despite the fact her scenes are not actually SUPPOSED to be funny.
The Scottish accent attempt was poor too.
Kirshner was good, in a small role.
The plot was ridiculously over-complicated and complex. I have to confess to not understanding the motivations of the murderer(s) at all - too many characters, particularly characters whose names were mentioned, forgotten about for an hour and then brought back in again as if the audience is going to remember every one of them. For example, the old white guy with the black girl at the start... we're expected to remember his name an hour after he is last seen on screen and it just didn't seem feasible to me.
And I don't object to graphic violence (or sex or language) on screen at all, if it's necessary. But do we really need to see a girl's lip spread open by a knife or a man's smash headfirst into a marble floor? What possible value did it add to the movie apart from to wake a tired audience up?
Something about the style worked well - but the content was pretty poor and the acting was all over the place.
Brian De Palma has heaps of style as a filmmaker - hell this is the man that gave us Scarface afterall!!
He just hasn't been directing great movies of late. Unfortunately.
i thought swank was hot.
went to see this yesterday. fell asleep in the middle of it.
shite.
saw this last night
quite rubbish
i quite enjoyed the swank, i thought her performance was ok, even quite amusing at times - my favourite line of the whole movie was when josh told swank his name and she was like: BUCKY? i'll TRY to remember that
also funny how her best shot was of her in drag, as PER
otherwise i agree with pretty much of what's been said
the ending completely ruined everything and the saving grace of the movie was the dinner josh had with madelene's family and mia was very good
the movie as a whole dragged and i didn't see ANYTHING stylish about it
the best song wasn't a single
I just watched this on TV now (only 6 years late to the party!). Very beautiful visually. Ridiculously overwrought narrative, almost impossible to follow in places. Thought Hartnett was pretty good, he did his best to hold the whole sorry mess together. Liked Johansson, but then I always do. Didn't care for Eckhart or Swank.
5/10.
Hilary Wank was the ugliest female actress in it...
I have to defend Wank in one respect though...
Hartnett was surprisingly not bad - but someone oughta pay for him to get some treatment to widen those little specks he calls eyes.
kyoko, it's me
Are you really mansoning something I said SIX YEARS AGO? I would gladly manson it myself except I did it that long ago!
Last edited by cwej; 18-06-2012 at 07:11 AM.
Jark to manson the fact women weren't allowed to vote next.
Last edited by jivafox; 18-06-2012 at 09:29 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
