I was browsing through Roger Ebert's answerman columns, in which he answers through questions posed by people going onto his website. They are one of the most entertaining things you can read in the subject of film criticism as he is insanely knowledgable on everything film, has great insights and sometimes has a sense of humor.
I saw Roger Ebert on ET the other night and he is in terrible shape right now and can't exactly talk. He has to talk through a computer like Stephen Hawking, so that's quite tragic. When it comes to seeing his printed word, he's still as sharp as ever.
Anyway, since I don't think I should copy and paste some of the questions I found interesting, i could try to post some links:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071129/ANSWERMAN/711290304/1023
This question is about whether actors simulate sex in films.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071129/ANSWERMAN/711290304/1023
This question is about the writer's strike and whether Ebert and Reoper receive residuals
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071101/ANSWERMAN/337/1023
Whether Ebert has a preference toward foreign films
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071101/ANSWERMAN/332/1023
Whether people should wait for the end credits to finish rolling or not before leaving. The question was from an annoyed viewer that people got up and left while Michael Clayton was still on the screen on the .
My opinion is that #1) nothing further in the story happens after the end credits kept rolling #2) it's usually up to people if they want to reap the rewards of the end credits or not #3) as a former movie theater usher, we're generally supposed to wait until the end credits finish rolling before we go in and clean but if it's a busy schedule we usually can't resist the temptation to start a little early
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071025/ANSWERMAN/710250317/1023
The controversy over people saying Al Gore won an Oscar when he didn't. I personally think that even if he didn't win the statue he was a major force behind the film and should receive acknowledgement as the man behind the Oscar-winning film because a) the director didn't really do much but just point the camera at him as he babbled b) you know that someone as media-savvy as Gore knew how to market and promote the film and get behind it and c) there would clearly be no film behind Gore. The analogy that saying Gore is the Oscar winner for Inconvenient Truth being as ludicrous as saying Muhammad Ali won an Oscar for When We Were Kings, is clearly incorrect, because Gore was an active participant in the film.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071025/ANSWERMAN/710250317/1023
Damn, the 6th Sense has just been ruined, I think I'll write a seperate post on this. But that was highly insensitive. I think I'll write Roger Ebert a question about this.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071025/ANSWERMAN/710250317/1023
Controvoursey over whether Francis Ford Coppolla being quoted in a magazine as saying Nicholson, De Niro and Pacino have been cinematically lazy over the last decade. Nicholson made About Schmidt, As Good as it Gets (which I think was a little overrated), and Departed; Pacino made Insomnia, Angels and America, Merchant of Venice, Two for the Money, and Devil's Advocate and De Niro's most notable effort would debatably be Sleepers. I haven't seen Stardust so I won't judge. I've heard a couple good things. Other than that we have films like Gigli, Mars Attacks, Anger Management, Showtime, Godsend, City by the Sea, The Score, Stardust, Shark Tale, The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle, Meet the Parents, Meet the Fockers (shameless money-grabbing sequel), Simeone, The Recruit, Two for the Money, and Something's Gotta Give, so perhaps Francis Ford Copolla shouldn't feel a need to apologize after all.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071108/ANSWERMAN/711080307/1023
When was the first use of a flying saucer in a film. This post also indicates that Ebert is willing to help you with homework projects
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071101/ANSWERMAN/335/1023
Whether that opening clip at Darjeerling Limited had any merit. I admire Anderson for leaving it out of the film and making it a separate movie, but nothing much really happened in the opening clip and I have no idea what the cause for the hatred was between the two people.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071018/ANSWERMAN/710180316/1023
This post discusses how films in the Victorian Era greatly fantasize the period. Elizabeth, in real life, would have had no teeth by the age of 30, because evidently British people back in those days had no dental hygiene (a tradition which proudly still stands). I saw Elizabeth and the Golden Age and I think that they went out of their way to make Elizabeth not look glamorous but realistic and even ugly at times. Certainly, the viewer wasn't drawn into Elizabeth's glamour.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071025/ANSWERMAN/710250308/1023
If Queen Elizabeth II would watch on her TV at home, when Cate Blanchett wins the Oscar this year for playing QEI (which by the way, most people agree is a long shot for a win though a probable nomination at this point).
His response: "If Blanchett were to win for "Elizabeth: The Golden Age," that would mean she'd receive the award from Forest Whitaker. He won for "The Last King of Scotland." I hope he doesn't hold the beheading of Mary, Queen of Scots against her."
Showing posts with label Al Pacino. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Al Pacino. Show all posts
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Movie Review (1992): Scent of a Woman
Scent of a Woman is a great film with a bad rep among Oscar pundits because it was the movie for which Al Pacino won the Oscar undeservedly. I personally think that Pacino deserved the Oscar and I don't care if I'm the only one in the world who thinks that. At the same time, I didn't think as highly of the movie as a whole, until when I rewatched it recently. Before rewatching it on TV last night, I had watched it once before about a decade ago. It's a typical "young man meets older man and he guides him through a coming of age" trial that's in the tradition of Dead Poet's Society, Goodbye Mr. Chips, and Good Will Hunting*. It stars Al Pacino as Colonel Slade, the old man who in this version has a pretty nasty exterior to get past, and Chris O'Donnell as the poor prep school student who must look after Pacino's character for a weekend so he can raise enough money to go home for Thanksgiving break. started out having three main problems with this movie.
First of all, Charlie (O'Donnell's character) is pretty asexual. Now, I think you're aloud to be asexual, and I don't think every protagonist in a movie has to be involved with a girl or something, but contrasted with so much talk about sex from the Colonel's character and the fact that Charlie who's in late adolescence when his hormones should be in full bloom, I found it rather curious. I wish he got to at least have danced with that pretty girl, rather than guided Al Pacino to dance with her in the tango scene. Nevertheless, it's still refreshing in the wake of some of the more oversexualized movies of the late 90s like American Pie and Cruel Intentions. My second problem lies in Al Pacino's character arc was from his impossible to get along with stage to his genuine self. I know it's necessary to create a certain progression for him, so he could've been so much more effective in his stubbornly likable personality, but still it was overdone and stretched out. My biggest beef, however, is that the boys who Charlie refuses to squeal on, have absolutely no likable traits whatsoever. They're ugly, uncharismatic, they rub it in how they're richer than him, and they're cowards. The pressure that one guy, George, exerts on him is cruel. It is true that the other headmaster is a jerk too, for picking on him, but I wasn't necessarily sure which was the lesser of two evils.
However, these three things were what lingered in my memory about the movie from the last time I saw it 10 years ago, but by the movie's end, I was left exuberant and moved, because those problems are more than cancelled out by what the film has going for it, which is the immeasurable chemistry between Pacino and O'Donnell's characters in this film. O'Donnell plays his part with a wide-eyed innocence and a guarded sense of caution that has the added effect of keeping the movie from being too corny, and Pacino is mesmerizing. The two create magic with every conversation they have. Also, the movie plays out like a series of short episodes and some of them like the car driving scene and the tango lesson are a lot of fun. What I also came to appreciate is that the film is a little harder to grasp because it doesn't follow conventional methods of storytelling. True, it would be easier for Charlie's peers to be worth standing up to, but the story never took the easy route.
The lesson learned? Star chemistry makes all the difference.
*Technically speaking, Good Will Hunting came after Scent of a Woman but you get my point
First of all, Charlie (O'Donnell's character) is pretty asexual. Now, I think you're aloud to be asexual, and I don't think every protagonist in a movie has to be involved with a girl or something, but contrasted with so much talk about sex from the Colonel's character and the fact that Charlie who's in late adolescence when his hormones should be in full bloom, I found it rather curious. I wish he got to at least have danced with that pretty girl, rather than guided Al Pacino to dance with her in the tango scene. Nevertheless, it's still refreshing in the wake of some of the more oversexualized movies of the late 90s like American Pie and Cruel Intentions. My second problem lies in Al Pacino's character arc was from his impossible to get along with stage to his genuine self. I know it's necessary to create a certain progression for him, so he could've been so much more effective in his stubbornly likable personality, but still it was overdone and stretched out. My biggest beef, however, is that the boys who Charlie refuses to squeal on, have absolutely no likable traits whatsoever. They're ugly, uncharismatic, they rub it in how they're richer than him, and they're cowards. The pressure that one guy, George, exerts on him is cruel. It is true that the other headmaster is a jerk too, for picking on him, but I wasn't necessarily sure which was the lesser of two evils.
However, these three things were what lingered in my memory about the movie from the last time I saw it 10 years ago, but by the movie's end, I was left exuberant and moved, because those problems are more than cancelled out by what the film has going for it, which is the immeasurable chemistry between Pacino and O'Donnell's characters in this film. O'Donnell plays his part with a wide-eyed innocence and a guarded sense of caution that has the added effect of keeping the movie from being too corny, and Pacino is mesmerizing. The two create magic with every conversation they have. Also, the movie plays out like a series of short episodes and some of them like the car driving scene and the tango lesson are a lot of fun. What I also came to appreciate is that the film is a little harder to grasp because it doesn't follow conventional methods of storytelling. True, it would be easier for Charlie's peers to be worth standing up to, but the story never took the easy route.
The lesson learned? Star chemistry makes all the difference.
*Technically speaking, Good Will Hunting came after Scent of a Woman but you get my point
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)