|
i sounded like a film major for a sec.
>...is that he'll give a bad film some good press as long as >it is visually stunning. He might be harsher on 'em in >print, but on TV all he does is thumbs up or down so that's >all the viewing audience remembers.
the show has time constraints. you have two guys talking about five or six films in a twenty-three minute time frame, with clips interspersed.
>recent examples include "What Dreams May Come" and "The >Cell"-- both flicks that were visually stunning but sucked >everywhere else.
what dreams may come-3.5: Vincent Ward's ``What Dreams May Come'' is so breathtaking, so beautiful, so bold in its imagination, that it's a surprise at the end to find it doesn't finally deliver. It takes us to the emotional brink but it doesn't push us over. It ends on a curiously unconvincing note--a conventional resolution in a movie that for most of its length has been daring and visionary.
So, yes, I have my disappointments with it. But I would not want them to discourage you from seeing it, because this is a film that even in its imperfect form shows how movies can imagine the unknown, can lead our imaginations into wonderful places.
the cell-4 stars:For all of its visual pyrotechnics, it's also a story where we care about the characters; there's a lot at stake at the end, and we're involved. I know people who hate it, finding it pretentious or unrestrained; I think it's one of the best films of the year.
so he admits to being a visual junkie, good occupation for him to go in considering. he also is a fantasy fan it seems (see dark city.) and thats not to say he will only like a film because of the images it exhibits. "before night falls" got 3.5 stars and no mention of the pictures it casts across the screen, even though, in my mind, it was one of the most and best "visual" films in recent memory.
|