MovieChat Forums > rnmboon > Replies
rnmboon's Replies
Never heard of this before. And going by Streep's response it became water under the bridge a long time ago. Looking at the information about it in his wikipedia-article Hoffman has been very remorseful about it anyway.
Dustin Hoffman is 86 years old. Undoubtedly he retired from acting some time ago. Very doubtful that it had anything to do with this.
It is now out on blu-ray in Australia: https://viavision.com.au/shop/lenny-1974-imprint-collection-286/
She is not ugly. Just terribly miscast.
I very much dislike the camerawork in this film. It looks unpleasantly soft and faded. Apparently that was the intention but I don't think it works too well. It would have been a better film with more traditional cinematography imho.
Vilmos Zsigmond gave an interesting interview about it a few years ago: https://filmmakermagazine.com/87150-old-faded-pictures-vilmos-zsigmond-on-mccabe-mrs-miller/#.ZZHTnHbMLb0
Season 1 was good.
Season 2 dragged on a bit but was enjoyable.
Season 3 went in a completely different direction with the style. It felt like the makers were more interested in having things look "cool" and did not bother with telling a coherent story.
I won't be watching season 4. And I kind of regret watching season 3.
I sort of get what he was trying to do with this film but it is just too silly. It is a good looking film but compared to similar films like Purple Rose of Cairo it is a bit too blunt. And he probably shouldn't have cast himself: he looked instantly unconvincing in the role.
Still an amusing film but one of his weaker ones.
The few interviews from the day that can be found online don't really mention it:
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/1995/apr/08/the-next-brando-johnny-depp-seems-to-be-on-his/
https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1995/vp950410/04080030.htm
It is 2023. These days if a movie is not crap it will get hyped into oblivion.
I am sorry but Jodie is right. The main problem with superhero movies is that there are too many of them and they bleed the industry dry right now. Superhero movies tend to be very expensive and the production of those movies requires money that could have gone to the production of other films with more medium sized budgets. Until around 2000 most films that were shown in cinema's were in that range and big budget CGI-heavy blockbusters were rare. In 2023 the kind of films that are shown in theaters are much more one sided than they were in the 80's and 90's: medium sized "big" movies are uncommon. And when the big blockbuster superhero movies don't do so well financially it isn't good for the industry as a whole.
Apparently it lacked "Supervision on the Set": https://variety.com/2023/film/news/bob-iger-disney-too-man-sequels-explains-marvels-flop-1235814475/
Lol, no. It feels more like the genre has run its course. And the last thing that is needed is films made by committees and managers.
Hopefully she is right about it being a phase. Getting a bit sick of superhero movies.
There is a documentary about the discovery and she doesn't look too great in it. Yes, she initiated the whole thing but the university did all the work with regard to the dig and the identification. And in the documentary she did not come across very likeable or happy about the university being in the limelight. She seemed especially unhappy about the discovery that Richard III indeed had a crooked spine. That was apparently something that the "Ricardians" always denied. I haven't seen this film but even beforehand I doubt that it is going to portray the actual events somewhat fairly.
I gave it a 9/10. Gorgeous film and a very well told story.
Wondering about this myself:
- IMDB states that it is supposed to be 1.66 : 1
- my DVD copy has (what seems to be) a 1.33 : 1 ratio
The hype surrounding this movie is a bit bewildering. In many ways it is a copy of the original (with a some stuff added) which was an amusing but not a very highbrow movie to begin with. I only saw Maverick for the first time recently and it was a very underwhelming experience. Definitely an overrated film.
That's "artistic license" for ya. With two thirds of the story already being fiction I wasn't bothered by it. It is somewhat heightened drama and not a biopic.
It still isn't the correct use of the term. Even though I have heard it quite a few times now it still sounds wrong.
I only mind how it goes against the proper use of English grammar.
Why does Moviechat feel so attacked by Taylor Swift? I don't get it. I really don't.
Definitely worth it. It is the only subscription service for online media that I feel is worth paying for. But then again YouTube has totally replaced lineair television for me.