MovieChat Forums > letess > Replies
letess's Replies
Keanu was perfect for this movie. Depp is the better actor but in this movie, Keanu fits the bill. Jason is always doing Brando, but he’s good. Depp could do the scenes but he would look like Frankie Avalon in the surfing part. I am wondering if you have seen My Own Private Idaho because sometimes a person just has to look and feel the part. In The Gift, Keanu was more than passable. He was terrifying. I agree with Keanu’s earlier movies - Dracula, Liaisons - but he nailed this role. I never once thought he wasn’t right for this role. And I am one to think that often. I thought Leonardo was miscast in Titantic.
Keanu was perfect. Why are you trying to recast a perfect movie. Keanu and Swayze were perfect together too. And Keanu has a physical presence. Anyone who saw The Gift. Standing up in that courtroom scene. You could feel the raw violence his character had. And he’s fearless. Keanu became an accomplished and regular surfer after "Point Break.” Surfers hold him in high esteem. Reeves also has extensive martial arts training in Judo, Brazilian Jitsu, weapons, and stunt work. Depp and Keanu are the same age now - Depp looks so out of shape now and he’s really short. Jason Patric was always doing Brando. Depp is a fine writer. Actor. Raconteur. But he’s not athletic. You’ve underestimated Keanu. My Own Private Idaho. Both great performances by River and Keanu.
Depp is not athletic. I can’t even see him on a surfboard.
It would have been unwarranted if she actually shot him. That was a wake up call. This is a cops and robbers movie. The surfer girl whose ex is a surfer/bank robber and whose friends are as well resemble a family and then to find out her new bf is an undercover cop out to get them. And with that in mind, the big reveal is that she’s been used. Her reaction act doesn’t stand out as you say as it follows the tone of the whole movie.
We’re all in agreement then. Beyoncé has charisma. Except for the guy you mention at the Boston Globe doesn’t think so. And one poster here who says we don’t know her. You’ll have to define charisma “compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others.”
I watch Polar Express every Christmas. I saw Beowulf at IMAX. It was the most memorable film I have ever seen at IMAX for what IMAX has to offer. Except maybe for Ghost Protocol. Flight and Walk were excellent. This is a ridiculous post. You probably would never have thought about Zemeckis in your daily thoughts. And the nude scene reference is just so strange.
You don’t think when he landed the plane. One of the best rides for all time. I actually can’t remember nude scene.
Are you kidding. Flight was one the best movies. Denzel’s performance was fantastic.
The people who felt it racist were the Hmong people and the actors in the movie have often reflected as such.
I think it’s Eastwood’s best role. And one of his most compelling movies. But there are other opinions by Asian actors in the movie and community who think otherwise and you have to listen to everyone.
Beyonce definitely has charisma. You can argue other things, but that is the one thing she does have. Can she sing as good as Etta James. Maybe not. I don’t think charisma is the word you want. I don’t think anyone is ranting. The links are weak.
1st link - says the movie is awful and everyone says the same - What was Steve Martin thinking. Is Clive Owen’s role necessary. Chugging of Richard Dreyfus. Beyonce can’t act.
2nd link is of Ashlee Simpson.
3rd one - he’s a reputable TV Critic of the Boston Globe and is commenting on a documentary of hers in 2013. He doesn’t see how Beyoncé can compare to Whitney Houston or Michael Jackson. Many can agree on that. He asks if she’s relevant. This is what bothers this guy. Her relevance. Actually, his question is she really worthy of greatness?
Who (many people) says that she doesn’t?
And then there is Greta Scacchi. How can you replace her.
As well as: Raul Julia. Paul Winfield. John Spencer. Brian Dennehy. And Harrison.
I can’t make you watch anything. Already. If you don’t care about the look of a film. Well that is huge in its own right. The story is great. The acting is great. The scenery. It’s very weird but so brilliant. Not for everyone. But it just shows that every once in a while, even through this really down period in making good films, that something comes through that shines brightly. But looking at your comments, I’m not sure you’d feel the same. What concerns me are posters who share their dislikes of movies they haven’t seen.
Sorry. There was a poster. Melton. Got emori mixed up with that. He/She made the comment.
I didn’t ask about Birdman.
I asked about unwatchable movies you say are unwatchable that are Emma’s. Why didn’t you watch Poor Things? How can you comment on something you haven’t seen? She’s not brain damaged. There’s no pedophilia or grooming. The story is fantastic. The visuals. The sets, the costumes are elaborate and breathtaking. The music is phenomenal. And, whereas I did not buy into Emma’s acting credibility, this performance cemented it. One of the bravest I’ve ever seen. This is one of the greatest films in the last decade. I honestly can’t understand people posting comments on a film they haven’t seen and then try to support their argument over a YouTube link. Just have to say. The term artsy farts is a little dated. What does back in the day mean to you?
I think the topic of this original post was about Emma Stone and the kinds of movies she made, which you stated are unwatchable. It sounds like you didn’t like La La Land. This movie is a favorite of many - not me. And you can call it many things, but it is not boring. I like Umbrellas of Cherbourg better. And you mention Poor Things - but did you watch Poor Things - all the way through. Did you see The Favourite? I am confused with pedophile comment.
You list a lot of movies that are not hers but I guess go under your unwatchable movie list. A lot of your comments for each movie are “boring depressing” - which is such an odd takeaway for EVERY film and a commentary should include way more than that for a dismissal. And what is the time period for “back in the day”?
Did you watch the “Unwatchable Movies”? Trailers don’t count.
Maybe love letter is an annoying phrase. But this is definitely a well thought out acknowledgment to the specialized and unrecognized profession of stuntmen everywhere. Not as good as Bullet Train, but director Leitch is a stuntman and he incorporates the stuntmen he knows to do these difficult stunts that seem like nothing to us. And then he takes an 80s TV show - only because he probably had to pitch this thing to the producers and since we are only seeing remakes, prequels and sequels and bios - it gave him traction. And the reason for this is supposedly to get the “stuntmen” category recognized by the Oscars. And yet, ironically, if there were such a category, this movie would not be nominated for it. Because when you think of stunts - I automatically, think of Ghost Protocol 135th floor, The Spy Who Loved Me ski jump, Cliffhanger, True Lies. Or the surfer in Point Break who rode that 50 ft wave in at the end and got paid very little. But the dialogue, especially the romantic banter is horrible. Not so bad as Jack and Rose in Titanic but almost. When this movie finally gets to the dead guy in the tub is there a sense of purpose - yes, so this is a mystery. Why is this guy dead? And then you find out why. All with the backdrop of the breathtaking beauty of Sydney Harbour. I don’t know about you, but I just want to see a movie that doesn’t deal with vampires, zombies, the end of the world, alternative states, prequels, sequels, or bios, and for me, families. I had a really enjoyable time watching this at the theater and everybody at the theater did too. And I laughed in this. Some parts. Didn’t you laugh at Aaron Taylor-Johnson doing Matthew McConaughey or when Gosling has a serious discussion with the cast who all looked like the Star Wars bar. It may not be the best, but it’s going in a better direction. I’d prefer seeing Ryan with Russell Crowe in that last great movie they did but I guess it wasn’t great enough.
So you saw the film. I did like first 45 minutes with the child Furiosa and Dementus. But that’s it.
So I have to ask. What other movies have you seen this year?
All of your comments are really good. I looked at some stuff because I was interested in the actual script. It seems Milius wrote it with a Green Beret in mind (Rheault - not Tony Poe) who was up against a military scandal but who was a decent guy and somehow, according to Milius, Coppola rewrote the script and made it like the musical Hair. And then Brando said he rewrote his part. In a way this might be truest, because we know he ad libbed. I recently saw a documentary done in 2015, “Listen to Me Marlon” by Stevan Riley. And, I am wondering if you saw it because it has a segment in it about Coppola and Apocalypse Now. Brando was miffed at what Coppola said about him. Brando claims he saved Coppola’s movie by rewriting his part. I do believe Marlon Brando showed up NOT reading Heart of Darkness. I can tell you this because Brando couldn’t understand why his character was named Colonel Kurtz. “American generals don’t have those kind of names. They have flowery names, from the South. I want to be ‘Colonel Leighley’.’’ And so they had to call him Leighley for awhile to appease him. He eventually read the novella, and now understood his name and the character and wanted to play him as a monster, which is probably what you read about Brando and researching CIA operative, Poe. But Milius and Coppola insist he wasn’t the guy they based it on. And Ellsberg mentions Pentagon Papers had a lot to do with Rheault who he thought was a victim “of an unholy system … to conceal murder.” But if Brando reimagined his role and ad libbed, then maybe Tony Poe won out as he was the “monster” (sending severed heads and ears). Brando saw the military leader probably much like the US government and the war on Native Americans. Coppola had to endure the humidity and a typhoon and Brando’s demands. Sheen had a heart attack. Sam Bottoms and Hopper were doing drugs. Coppola’s budget was gone. Brando’s mumbling with improvisational dialogue and filming in dark shadows is the performance now being credited as genius. Coppola managed to come out ahead professionally and financially. Jack Nicholson would not have been right as Kurtz. I read that Lee Marvin and Orion Welles were the only other ones - Welles, the only actor bigger in girth than Brando. Next time this movie is at a theater, I will go and see with new eyes in part by what you said. I think the Redux version is better bc of the French part. Also, watching this along with the film Indochine and also the one with Michael Caine, The Quiet American, set in 1952 Saigon, a novel by Graham Greene would make it all the more interesting. French rule was especially cruel (also seen in Papillon) and hugely responsible for the state of things before US involvement. I just think Brando got lazier and crazier later on and some of the stuff he did didn’t merit all this glowing admiration but during “his” time, there was nothing like him.