Agreed. He’s a had a few stinkers but his successes outnumber them and have had a strong impact on cinema over the past 20 years.
Followed up Alita by watching another Jennifer Connelly movie: Labyrinth, which I’d never seen.
I watched The Dark Crystal a few weeks ago, and thought it was a decent technical achievement with an incredibly dull and boilerplate fantasy story, so my expectations weren’t high, but I thought this was great. Just huge fun, and Connelly and Bowie are both excellent. Great music too, obviously.
That was probably my favorite movie as a kid. Mainly because of the Escher stairs scene (I didn’t know they where Escher’s at the time obviously =P) and the scenery in general. Last time I watched it was a long time ago and it didn’t age too well I’m afraid, particularly the “VFX” scenes, IIRC, but there’s still a lot to appreciate in that movie.
Jennifer Connelly was my first crush as a kid because of Labyrinth.
The 30th Anniversary Back to the Future blu-ray set has a couple of episodes of the animated series on it as a bonus. They are really not good (how they convinced Mary Steenbergen to voice Clara for it, I don’t know).
The live action bits with Christopher Lloyd aren’t bad mind. I was surprised to see this writer in the credits for the first one though.
I watched Bohemian Rhapsody today. I’m a bit behind, but got to see it on a plane and really loved it. I thought the performances were great, the music amazing and honestly the movie it reminded me of was Amadeus. The story of a genius who lost his way. I’d be quite happy to see it win best picture, but I’m guessing in the wake of Bryan Singer stuff that won’t happen.
I think you and me are the only ones here who enjoyed it and got what they wanted from it.
Also, I’ve been slagged relentlessly by the girl I’m seeing about sleeping like Freddie Mercury; poker straight looking up at the ceiling. When that bit came on in the cinema she leaned over and says, “He sleeps like you,” and I think people were wondering what we were laughing at.
Reed also did the pre-show for the BTTF theme park ride:
I’m a bit surprised by the hate, I’m quite glad I’m going against the grain. I fly home on Friday and think I may watch it again. It’s stuck with me today, which is a good sign. I get some people didn’t like how they screwed with the facts, but it’s a movie not a document and they wanted to tell a story and tell about the spirit of Freddy, and that involved moving things for dramatic effect. I’m ok with that as basically every biopic movie will do the same. Amadeus was hugely guilty of screwing with the facts but who gives a shit? They story is amazing. As is the music. Walk the line was the same. The Ray Charles movie. Fucking Sound of Music.
I think creating music in particular is the most interesting and amazing thing humans do, so I love great storytelling about the musical legends. It’s still a movie and liberties have to be made. I can accept that.
A Star is Born might feel like a better movie, but it’s fiction, of course it’s better.
The direction was great. The lead performance deserves all the recognition it can get.
Watching Django Unchained on IFC…again. Just got through watching the funniest part of the movie.
The screwing with the facts wasn’t a major reason I wasn’t a fan. I thought the narrative was jumpy and didn’t really say much. There’s a lot of meetings in rooms when there are more interesting things to put on screen. Malek did a good impersonation but was rather one-note, if you see Freddie interviewed he’s often quite subdued and thoughtful and not always camping it up. The stuff with his parents and Mary were very superficial in what seem to be very complex relationships.
Saying that it is not a film that’s been universally panned, I didn’t like it but plenty did, including film critics. From friends I have spoken to it does seem the less you knew going in makes it more enjoyable, maybe things like the battle to get BR released as a single work better if you haven’t already heard the story many times, and of course the music was great.
I knew what it was going to be, a light-hearted and entertaining look at Queen and that’s what I wanted. I would watch a serious movie about Mercury too, but this wasnt it and that didn’t bother me, it put me in a great mood and the exchange between him and the rest of the band - “What did you sack him for?” “Villainy” is my favourite exchange out of the movies I’ve seen over the last year, just in front of “I am Steve Rogers.”
I’m watching The Passage based on what people have said here and whoever named it that needs to be moved to a job less taxing. What a terrible name for a show with such electric and likeable performances from the lead characters. The overarching storyline is okay, if a little derivative, but really, it doesn’t matter, I’d watch these two no matter what the premise. Definitely agree with @Tom_Punk’s Lone Wolf and Cub comparison.
The Jonah Hill bit?
I haven’t seen Bohemian Rhapsody, but in my mind, the benchmark comparison would have to be Stone’s The Doors, which took some appalling liberties with the true story:
For the Ed Sullivan Show performance, Kilmer as Morrison is shown wearing a black shirt; however, during Morrison’s actual performance on the show in September 1967, he wore a white shirt and a black leather jacket.
(I’m kidding, if you read its wiki article there are whole paragraphs of significant historical distortions listed. Plus the wrong colour shirt.)
The thing is, in 1991 I knew literally nothing about The Doors. They had completely passed under my radar, and I probably only knew two songs well enough to hum a bit. So I didn’t really care how bad the accuracy was, I enjoyed an interesting story well told and was introduced to some great music for the first time.
Queen is a completely different matter. I’ve been aware of their music since I was at school, been a “fan” for most of my life, and have read plenty of interviews and background articles about them. If I watched the film now, I wouldn’t be able to help myself holding the story to a higher standard of accuracy, and I feel that I would probably be irritated by it.
Maybe I’m wrong, but it’s not a film I need to see (because it’s a story I know with a soundtrack I know backwards), so it’s much better to save my money and stay at home with the CDs
I would say in the defence of Bohemian Rhapsody in many places, especially the performances, it is painstakingly accurate.
The only real bit that’s changed dramatically is the timing of his HIV diagnosis being shifted up around 2 years to add some extra drama. There are things that are omitted or played down, like how wild his parties were or how many lovers he took but that’s not inaccurate as much as what they chose to focus on.
In the concert comparison at the end the clothes, the movements, even how the Pepsi cups and beer are lined up on the piano, are incredibly accurate.
It’s interesting how making the film about Freddie changed the emphasis of that performance.
What it did in real life was renew the whole band for the audience. They’d slipped a bit, in the public eye,
That set brought them back with a bang, but the film makes it about Freddie coming back because it adds the fiction that Freddie had left and that they’d broken up.
Very true, although ironically in the film version they cut to the band a lot more. The original Live Aid footage pretty much never takes the camera off Freddie (for obvious reasons).