(no subject)
Jan. 2nd, 2005 05:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cleolindaToday's horoscope: You've gotten yourself worked up into quite a state. Chill out, already!
Rrrright. Another spot-on horoscope, in that 1) it's true; 2) thanks a lot, man--that's easy for YOU to say; 3) but it's true, I can't work if I don't let go a little; 4) but all the working in the world isn't going to make tomorrow's deadline at this point, so why not freak the hell out; 5) but if I'm not going to make it and I know it, why bother freaking out in the first place, because it's not like that accomplishes anything anyway; 6) this is a terribly, terribly constructed sentence and should probably be put out of its misery.
I sat up last night staring at my Matrix gaps, unable to think of a damn thing to do about anything. Rather than slowly go nuts today, I managed to get Mom to go with me to The Aviator instead of Flight of the Phoenix. About two hours into the movie with no end in sight, she turns to me and whispers, "How long is this movie? It's not three hours or something, is it?" I just shrugged innocently, but... has she never, ever seen a Scorsese movie before? I don't have, like, all the running times of everything he's ever made at my fingertips, but I remember The Age of Innocence being a total anomaly at something over only two hours. This one was about ten minutes shy of being three hours long, but then you have to add in about thirty minutes of trailers AND HELLSPAWN COMMERCIALS before that. I know Roger Ebert advocates complaining and walking out of any theater that shows non-movie commercials to paying customers, but... dude, where would I ever get to see a movie if I did that?
Speaking of Ebert, I thought the movie was good... but it wasn't that great. A really great movie, for me--and I admit here that any critical assessment of a movie is entirely unique and personal--sends me out of the theater feeling as if the tectonic plates under my feet have shifted. The acting is wonderful, though, and the movie feels less labored than Gangs of New York, which made me feel like Scorsese was trying to use the history of New York to prove... something about the present, but couldn't quite get the numbers to add up. (P.S. There is a spelling error on that review that I desperately need to fire up Page Builder and fix. Wait... there's another one. I'll be over here with my own obsessive-compulsive tendencies, thanks.) I will say that if you're a fan of old movies, like me--particularly the movies of the '30s; I had a total fangirl moment when I realized that Hughes was being shown with Katharine Hepburn at the premiere of The Women--go see it for Cate Blanchett's Hepburn performance. She doesn't look completely like her, but... the voice she does is astounding, and this is even taking into consideration that 1) Hepburn impressions can trip into caricature on a dime and 2) I'm a total Cate fangirl. Seriously. The vocal likeness is weird.
OH! OMG OMG OMG! We saw a trailer for Hostage! I had no idea what it was until the title came up at the end! And that's the last movie Cindy did the sets on! And it was a fabulous trailer in that it didn't give away every single plot point and secret! Woot!
Anyway. That's basically been my day: staring at various screens. Back to the final stretch so I have something to give Ginger tomorrow.
ETA: Has anyone else seen The Aviator? If so, was the scene where Hughes and Hepburn play golf blue? Like, it looked pretty normal, except that everything green was sky blue. And then Hughes' peas at the club with Jude Law were also sky blue. It was really weird. I couldn't figure out if the problem was on our end or... blue. What?
Rrrright. Another spot-on horoscope, in that 1) it's true; 2) thanks a lot, man--that's easy for YOU to say; 3) but it's true, I can't work if I don't let go a little; 4) but all the working in the world isn't going to make tomorrow's deadline at this point, so why not freak the hell out; 5) but if I'm not going to make it and I know it, why bother freaking out in the first place, because it's not like that accomplishes anything anyway; 6) this is a terribly, terribly constructed sentence and should probably be put out of its misery.
I sat up last night staring at my Matrix gaps, unable to think of a damn thing to do about anything. Rather than slowly go nuts today, I managed to get Mom to go with me to The Aviator instead of Flight of the Phoenix. About two hours into the movie with no end in sight, she turns to me and whispers, "How long is this movie? It's not three hours or something, is it?" I just shrugged innocently, but... has she never, ever seen a Scorsese movie before? I don't have, like, all the running times of everything he's ever made at my fingertips, but I remember The Age of Innocence being a total anomaly at something over only two hours. This one was about ten minutes shy of being three hours long, but then you have to add in about thirty minutes of trailers AND HELLSPAWN COMMERCIALS before that. I know Roger Ebert advocates complaining and walking out of any theater that shows non-movie commercials to paying customers, but... dude, where would I ever get to see a movie if I did that?
Speaking of Ebert, I thought the movie was good... but it wasn't that great. A really great movie, for me--and I admit here that any critical assessment of a movie is entirely unique and personal--sends me out of the theater feeling as if the tectonic plates under my feet have shifted. The acting is wonderful, though, and the movie feels less labored than Gangs of New York, which made me feel like Scorsese was trying to use the history of New York to prove... something about the present, but couldn't quite get the numbers to add up. (P.S. There is a spelling error on that review that I desperately need to fire up Page Builder and fix. Wait... there's another one. I'll be over here with my own obsessive-compulsive tendencies, thanks.) I will say that if you're a fan of old movies, like me--particularly the movies of the '30s; I had a total fangirl moment when I realized that Hughes was being shown with Katharine Hepburn at the premiere of The Women--go see it for Cate Blanchett's Hepburn performance. She doesn't look completely like her, but... the voice she does is astounding, and this is even taking into consideration that 1) Hepburn impressions can trip into caricature on a dime and 2) I'm a total Cate fangirl. Seriously. The vocal likeness is weird.
OH! OMG OMG OMG! We saw a trailer for Hostage! I had no idea what it was until the title came up at the end! And that's the last movie Cindy did the sets on! And it was a fabulous trailer in that it didn't give away every single plot point and secret! Woot!
Anyway. That's basically been my day: staring at various screens. Back to the final stretch so I have something to give Ginger tomorrow.
ETA: Has anyone else seen The Aviator? If so, was the scene where Hughes and Hepburn play golf blue? Like, it looked pretty normal, except that everything green was sky blue. And then Hughes' peas at the club with Jude Law were also sky blue. It was really weird. I couldn't figure out if the problem was on our end or... blue. What?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 03:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 04:04 pm (UTC)I'm iffy on The Aviator just 'cause I'm not in a hurry to spend 3+ hours watching a Scorcese movie starring Leo DiCaprio. He was so big when I was in 8th grade, I haven't gotten over my distrust of him, even if I know he does have some acting ability. But. But. I might see it, just because — Cate Blanchett as Katherine Hepburn. Oh me, oh my. I love them both.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 04:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 04:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 06:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-03 01:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 04:05 pm (UTC)But Cate Blanchett ... *swoon* I thought Leo did an excellent job, but she just about stole the entire picture. As if I didn't have enough Kate Hepburn love already. :) Still, it doesn't beat Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind for my favorite movie of the year.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 04:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 04:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 04:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 04:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-03 04:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 07:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 09:03 pm (UTC)(It's pretty awesome anyway, though.)
no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 04:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 04:25 pm (UTC)*pokes the Matrix for Cleo
no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 04:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 04:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 04:48 pm (UTC)Ah, Leo. I remember when Titanic came out, I was six or seven. All of my friends at school were fangirling over him, even though they hadn't seen the movie. Good times...
no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 04:57 pm (UTC)Re: the blue peas
Date: 2005-01-02 05:14 pm (UTC)And that's my random useless factoid for the day.
Re: the blue peas
Date: 2005-01-02 05:15 pm (UTC)Re: the blue peas
Date: 2005-01-02 05:30 pm (UTC)Perhaps Scorsese's boldest decision on Aviator was stylistic: He chose to give it a highly unusual color scheme, done mainly through digitally enhanced postproduction. It's a neat marriage of subject and technique: Since the film is set in '20s and '30s Hollywood, Scorsese wanted each year to look just the way a color film from that year might have looked. (Watch for a scene where somebody serves Hughes precisely placed peas on a plate, and they're turquoise — apparently just as they'd have appeared in the primitive two-strip Technicolor process.) As Hughes ages, the color gets more sophisticated and full-bodied, a progression that may be lost on the mainstream but that sets Scorsese atingle. ''I saw so many films as a kid that were done in two-color, like Cinecolor or two-strip Technicolor,'' Scorsese enthuses. ''They have a special kind of sense memory for me. And I imagine the past looking that way in Hollywood.''
Re: the blue peas
Date: 2005-01-02 05:40 pm (UTC)Re: the blue peas
Date: 2005-01-03 12:45 pm (UTC)See, it's thoughts like this that make M15M great.
Re: the blue peas
Date: 2005-01-02 06:08 pm (UTC)Re: the blue peas
Date: 2005-01-02 06:10 pm (UTC)Re: the blue peas
Date: 2005-01-02 09:50 pm (UTC)*pats cleo on the head*
Date: 2005-01-02 05:29 pm (UTC)You'd think that having that many more commercials in front of the movie would eat into the number of times the theater could show the movie itself and actually cause it to lose instead of make money. Maybe that's just me.
Re: *pats cleo on the head*
Date: 2005-01-03 10:03 am (UTC)Indeed. The Negaverse of publishing bookage doesn't stand a chance, yo.
Re: *pats cleo on the head*
Date: 2005-01-03 12:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 07:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 08:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-03 10:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 07:12 pm (UTC)bizzare.
i just saw king arthur and read your summary of it. Rockin.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 08:19 pm (UTC)Other comments (points up) are indicating that Scorsese intended for it to look blue/turquoise/whatever, so apparently I wasn't imagining things after all. : )
no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 09:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 09:52 pm (UTC)porning grandsonspossible rain over the next couple of days.As much as I love my diminutive husband, I have to say that I think Elijah Wood will be placed next to Leo in a future movie, to make the latter seem aged and grizzled.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-02 10:02 pm (UTC)Secondly, I've made some icons with quotes from your POA review and I was wondering if it would be alright if I post them in my icon journal (with complete credit and linkage to you of course. Plus, with credit to you instead of me in keywords). I won't post them or use them myself until I get the go-ahead from you. If you don't want me to, it's all good. At least I had fun reading the review for the 10th time (which still make me laugh). Wonderful work! :D
no subject
Date: 2005-01-03 07:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-03 12:13 am (UTC)So those blue things WERE peas .. I couldn't figure out what the bloody hell they were!
no subject
Date: 2005-01-03 08:41 am (UTC)I am a total Hepburn fangirl - hello! My name is even Katharine - and was a bit worried that Blanchett would, as per your comment, trip into caraciture territory. But she was just...astounding.
Loved Jude-as-Errol, simply because I think they are both scorchingly sexy. And "That's Tasmanian bastard!" had my sister and my dad and I, all of whom adore Flynn, rolling.
The Leo thing...I acknowledge that he's a good actor, but I've never ever found him cute or sexy or whathaveyou. But the first scene? At the Coconut Grove? When he's hitting on the waitress? I about melted out of my seat and ran up to lick the movie screen. I've never reacted that way to Leo, and from that moment on, his performance had me. I was very impressed.
Nutshell? As a old-movie geek, I adored this movie.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-03 08:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-03 09:58 am (UTC)(I also recommend Phantom, and I don't care what anyone says, 'cause I loved it.)
no subject
Date: 2005-01-03 11:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-03 02:04 pm (UTC)Also, I decided that the whole thing was a lot more interesting when I decided that Odie was secretly in love with Howard.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-03 03:48 pm (UTC)