Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow- Page 2

[lildogs]

Posted: 9/17/04 at 5:26pm

ok, Matt G....we'll see how many posters they print of Jolie after she dies...i doubt she ends up on a postage stamp

[Matt_G]

Posted: 9/17/04 at 5:39pm

Okay, lildogs. We'll resume this conversation in 60 years. Remind me.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 9/17/04 at 5:47pm

Rath, I have to disagree. Gwyneth really isn't bland at all, and if she manages to recreate her performance in the movie of Proof, she will prove it beyond all doubt.

Her win for Shakespeare In Love was undeserved though. Cate Blanchett was robbed. No doubt about it.

[Jon]

Posted: 9/17/04 at 7:06pm

"Proof" has potential, but as far as adaptations of plays go, "Closer" looks amazing in the trailers.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 9/18/04 at 5:23am

True, but Gwyneth is not in Closer, so it's a moot point.

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 9/18/04 at 8:18am

Maybe it's just me = but Gwyneth in The Talented Mr. Ripley, well I thought she was absolutely god-awful. She played that character so "one-note". Now, give me her mother in any film, any day - SHE can act!

[Auggie27]

Posted: 9/18/04 at 11:51am

Thought her ordinary in RIPLEY, charming--a real movie star--in SHAKESPEARE. But what I find interesting--this new generation of actresses who've won have trouble finding follow-up roles. Halle has made consistently bad choices after her Oscar (GOTHIKA anyone? Bond Catwoman?) and what has happened to Hillary Swank? She can't drive a movie where she plays, you know, a woman. Try and get through THE NECKLACE. (And her MIRACLE WORKER never came to B'way, because she was supposedly not sufficiently commanding on stage -- AND ticket sales were soft.) I hope Charlize breaks the curse, but you have to admit -- this batch of beautiful talented young things needs better material. It's ironic, no? Since we always hear that no good roles are around for the Meryls and Jessicas and Sarandons. But would those gals covet some of the paper-thin stuff made by Swank and Berry?

Updated On: 9/18/04 at 11:51 AM

[zoran912]

Posted: 9/18/04 at 12:03pm

You bring up a good point. A lot of it has to do with money. Most of the "great roles" that you mention were in independant films. The actresses don't usually get paid as much for those. Therefore, they are forced to act in popcorn blockbusters to make their money.

As for Sky Captain, I can't wait to see it.

[lildogs]

Posted: 9/18/04 at 12:08pm

well, i agree Gwyneth stole the Oscar, but she stole it from fernanda montenegro, not blanchett....i think having parents in show biz has been about 85% of her career, but she does have an interesting look and she can be charming onscreen (Margo in "tannenbaums" or vapid "ripley"....i can take her or leave her

[joeyjoe]

Posted: 9/18/04 at 6:40pm

okay, redhot and i saw this today... LOVED. IT. loved everything about it, the design, the soundtrack, the story, the humor, the style...

a little girl sitting next to me got up at the end and asked her grandmother, "Can i get a drink now for the suffering?"

[Matt_G]

Posted: 9/18/04 at 6:43pm

I just got back from seeing it, also. I agree with JoeyJoe. Most everything about it was great. Especially when you sit back and realize that everything was computer except for the actors. It really was astonishing.

My ONLY complaint was that I had to wait 75 minutes before seeing Jolie and than she was in it for all of 10 minutes. Big let down for an Angelina fan.

[joeyjoe]

Posted: 9/18/04 at 6:45pm

but in that 10 minutes, she was FABULOUS!

[Matt_G]

Posted: 9/18/04 at 6:46pm

Yes, she was! I'd like to know what happened to the eye, though.

[joeyjoe]

Posted: 9/18/04 at 6:46pm

war wound...

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 9/18/04 at 6:49pm

redhot - as usual, I agree with you. I hate that the great Blythe Danner is now known more as Gwyneth Paltrow's mother. Ick. Seriously. Ick.

[Matt_G]

Posted: 9/18/04 at 6:51pm

I must've missed that, JoeyJoe. Like Duncan, I guess.

[joeyjoe]

Posted: 9/18/04 at 6:51pm

we kept wanting to refer G's character (and her for that matter) to the Shut Up thread through the whole movie... Updated On: 9/18/04 at 06:51 PM

[Matt_G]

Posted: 9/18/04 at 6:52pm

After that, I went to go see WIMBELDON.
If you're sitting at home now, leave and go see that. You wouldn't believe how good it is!

[joeyjoe]

Posted: 9/18/04 at 6:54pm

not at $10.25 a pop!!!

[Matt_G]

Posted: 9/18/04 at 6:56pm

Go to 34th and Broadway. You can get them for $6! LOL

[BroadwayMonkey]

Posted: 9/18/04 at 8:37pm

I just saw the movie. Gwyneth= bad. Jude= hot. Anjelina= kick-ass. Graphics= awesome. Costumes= extremely cool.

EDIT: Plot= none.

Updated On: 9/18/04 at 08:37 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 9/18/04 at 9:09pm

Follow-up roles for a lot of up-and-coming stars are a problem. Not just the girls. It's just a byproduct of the fact that studios (and indie filmmakers, too) make so much crap. Updated On: 9/18/04 at 09:09 PM

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 9/19/04 at 4:57pm

Can't fault the actors for not being able to save this dud. This director spent 7 years working on his 'vision' which is just him recreating Max Fleisher's old "Superman" designs with less interesting characters and a nonsensical plot?

And why was the whole movie beige-green and horribly lit? Oh, that's why: because blue screen is a terrible way to shoot an entire movie, even if you have the power magically go out in the first scene so you can shoot everything in the dark.

The old movie serials at least had a modern sincerity to them, they were the best they could do in fifteen minute chapters on shoestring budgets: this is just another fanboy making a movie he thinks is for kids but is really just for fifty year-olds who want to see a movie like the ones they think they saw when they were kids.

[Plum]

Posted: 9/19/04 at 5:02pm

Very nice review, John Popa.

[Delphine]

Posted: 9/19/04 at 5:40pm

Monkey and JohnPopa, I couldn't agree more.