Reviews written by registered user
|12 reviews in total|
Do you think that film producers of modern films will ever listen to that quiet voice whispering, "you're overdoing this CGI gimmick, chaps. It doesn't impress people like in the early days. Give it a rest."?? The basic story wasn't bad but I began to yawn at the overdose of CGI. I prefer a witty dialogue, a director who will let the actors and actresses act and won't bombard us with a thumping over-aggressive sound track. Or have those days gone for good? Maybe that's the reason why they haven't remade "The Godfather" - there's no opportunity for them to stick twenty minutes of CGI to impress the masses. It really is a plus when a film reaches the cinemas which is noted for its dialogue and acting and a decent story line.
I'm assuming they didn't employ an editor for this film then? You should have asked me. Where are those pesky scissors??!! I will be buying the 1933 version on DVD. That was and is a classic and will remain so. Eighty years old and still has the magic. I was awe-struck when I first saw it and its a firm favourite having seen it twenty times. This new version was painfully too long, I mean excruciatingly so, and I swung between irritation and boredom, wanting to fast-forward through all that idiotic sub-plot with the dinosaurs etc etc and get to the capture of Kong and part 2 back in New York. We've got Jurassic Park and they gave us our fill of dinosaurs. It was just padding. Oh these wretched remakes. How Hollywood does love them!!
I spent nearly all of watching the film on TV wondering "why did they make it?" I'd seen the Toby Maguire version and thought it was OK. But a remake so soon??? Have they really got money to burn in Hollywood? THE GODFATHER is forty years old. Isn't it about time they did that again? When you've seen one Spiderman swinging through the New York skyscrapers you've seen them all. Remakes normally are a pain and this one confirmed that generalisation. The production did nothing in my mind to justify doing it all over again. Maybe the flying sequences were superior, technically, but does that really justify a complete remake? Are they really so hard up for ideas?
This film succeeds on so many levels. Great cast, background, story, it doesn't blast you out with junk noise when they think you might not be following the story. And of course, excellent subtitles. The cast excel at a variety of faces and the editing and photography never fail. Would recommend this to anyone. Lots of little bits of business to giggle over and loads of snide comments about the armaments industry which should hit where it needs to. I'll be happy to add this to my titles on my DVD shelf. When I first caught this film it had already begun and I didn't know what I was getting into but it soon enabled me to catch on. Quite a bit of the action comes along without dialogue and there's no need for it. One to enjoy.
Oh dear - how they do love to rack up the volume to pander to the modern taste! An interesting idea but I thought it could have been improved, seriously improved, if they had reduced the sound volume by twenty percent and tried, just a little to edit it with a bit more care. It seemed to me that the editing might have been done by one of the kids in the cast. Don't they do subtle any more? Nothing wrong with the basic story line, decent casting, but I really thought that the editing could have been paced a good bit slower to increase the basic tension of the build-up in the story. You see this style of film and TV program production far too frequently these days and as I have a hearing problem the dialogue is usually too low and the music far to high.
Yet another offering with a soundtrack thumping away in the background and an editor suffering from St Vitus' Dance. Are all current film production people unable to make a film where a scene does not change to another view after 0.93 seconds? Do they ALL assume that the audience need junk music every second to keep their interest? Why the relentless pace, lack of establishing shots, even a pause for breath? Then I changed my way of watching this film. Put the sub-titles on and mute the sound. Ah, thats much better. It does seem to me that the cartoon films (coming out in great numbers these days) do pretty good at mimicking human characteristics and the action films, showing humans in the starring roles, are now given the attributes that years back were only available to Tom and Jerry.
I was disappointed in this. I saw early parts of the story which reminded me of Logan's Run. I can't appreciate why film makers are now so intent on having the majority of the shots last about 1.76 seconds before whizzing on to the next which lasts about as long. They took time to build up the characters in Logans Run which helped me to identify with them. This film was just a hotch potch of carelessly put together "action" scenes were mainly a blur. The noise of collapsing machinery is added to junk music which all contribute to a senseless mess. What is wrong with showing an establishing shot? What is wrong with taking time to build up their characters rather than showing 15 instances of them looking worried? I'd like film makers let the story suggest what they show us. At the moment they're completely obsessed with hammering us with junk music and scenes lasting barely a second each.
A smart idea but why oh why do the directors these days fall into the trap of thinking that shots of action lasting 0.45 seconds each and stuck together are going to be entertaining? After ten minutes I'd had enough of this jazzy presentation of the introduction to the story and given it a miss. Don't they realize the basic idea of story telling is to build up to the climax? They should watch the films of forty years back to see about setting up an establishing shot and introducing the action gradually. The basic script idea was promising but its just too slick in the opening for its own good and the cutting and editing was so like Quantum of Solace with ultra-short scenes when a bit more subtlety in pace was called for.
So much of the dialogue is not clear. The background noise of music and vehicles is always racked up but the dialogue is muffled. The story, casting, photography is really very good and it stands as an excellent family film but I struggled to hear the conversations between the actors. It was so disappointing. It would really be helpful for the audience for them to have the story moved forward but the production people, who know the script and probably can't be bothered, really need to arrange for subtitles to be added. I really would buy it like a shot then. Why have they decided that subtitles are not required?? Do they really think that extra volume on music and vehicle noise is going to be sufficient? I'm baffled by their attitude.
Firstly, I should say that I'm over sixty and have seen Field of Dreams only recently mainly because I've been taking a closer interest in baseball over the past five years. My first reaction to the film after seeing it almost by accident was to regret that I hadn't walked out on my father when I was in my youth. I noted the relationship reconciliation which the Kevin Costner character achieved with his father but I remained at a distance from it. I have now purchased the DVD and will be watching it again I am sure. I know that the film will reveal different shades as I watch it again. Who knows? I could very likely appreciate it in a different way. As immersive films go, this must be in the top half dozen. Certainly on a par with ITS A WONDERFUL LIFE.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |