DVDizzy Forum

Just Myself wrote:

castleinthesky wrote:Just Myself, your pretty wrong, Marie Antoinette and The Devil Wears Prada were great (Marie) and good (Devils) respectively.

Actually, I believe your pretty wrong. As Roeper so correctly put it, Marie Antoinette is a frothy milkshake with no nutrients. Yeah, it's pretty to look out, but it's mind-numbingly dull, and honestly, how many times can the relatively modern soundtrack in a period piece setting work? It suited A Knight's Tale, as it was fast paced and lively; MA was so slow it made its already bloated 2 hour 3 minute running time seem like an eternity. How is this piece of fashion porn the second best film of the year?

Cheers,
JM

And that's why Ebert liked it, who is a much more experienced movie critic. I like Roeper a lot, but I do not agree with him on everything. He can't understand some films, but appreciate others (Howl's Moving Castle). Films have nuances that make them art. Some totally trash those nuances (Crash, Harry Potter 4, Lady in the Water). Marie Antoinette is a work of art, not just based of pretty costumes, but a apt plot, terrific acting (the best of Dunst's career), and terrific score allow the film to flourish into a piece of art that will be recognized for years to come.

The NUMBER ONE WORST: The Fountain


I have never come so close to walking out on a film. Came close before, but never THIS close. I was literally suffering while watching this.

slave2moonlight wrote:The NUMBER ONE WORST: The Fountain


I have never come so close to walking out on a film. Came close before, but never THIS close. I was literally suffering while watching this.

I would have to disagree with this. I can understand some distaste with this film, as the plot faulters in the end of the film. The cinematography, score, and graphics, however are the best, or second best of the year. The acting is superb, as Hugh Jackman gives the best performance of his career. It is no where near being the worst of the year, but I would have to say it isn't perfect.

castleinthesky wrote: I would have to disagree with this. I can understand some distaste with this film, as the plot faulters in the end of the film. The cinematography, score, and graphics, however are the best, or second best of the year. The acting is superb, as Hugh Jackman gives the best performance of his career. It is no where near being the worst of the year, but I would have to say it isn't perfect.

The acting was excellent and there were some amazing visuals. The writing and directing/editing, maybe the very story itself, all stunk, IMO.

I would put Night At The Museum on there in an instant. It was so lame and boring and I just couldn't stand it. Just because good actors were in it did not much it funny. And Ricky Gervais shouldn't have even been there, since he's a bad actor, didn't finish his lines (which made him difficult to understand, especially for children) and is quite full of himself. I hated the film to the max.
-James

I guess everyone will disagree with me, but I kind of liked How to Eat Fried Worms. I loved the book as a kid, and I think it was a pretty good family movie, even though it was a little different from the book (book is of course better). But I liked it...especially because my FAVORITE band Junior Senior is playing at the end!

The major disagreement I'm going to have with Ebert and Roeper is over The Hills Have Eyes remake. I think many people missed the parody aspects to the film. I also think if this wasn't a parody, it was at least a comment on the modern American psyche. Keep in mind this is a French director. We have groups of people in this film that have been screwed over by their government and remain patriotic. We have a religious family that prays together, and then gets attacked in the most ungodly way possible. Like the best horror films, we see that beneath the glossy exterior of civilization we have created, there is a very thin line between us and the base violent instincts we all share.

Just Myself wrote: Actually, I believe your pretty wrong. As Roeper so correctly put it, Marie Antoinette is a frothy milkshake with no nutrients. Yeah, it's pretty to look out, but it's mind-numbingly dull, and honestly, how many times can the relatively modern soundtrack in a period piece setting work? It suited A Knight's Tale, as it was fast paced and lively; MA was so slow it made its already bloated 2 hour 3 minute running time seem like an eternity. How is this piece of fashion porn the second best film of the year?

Hurrah! I was starting to think everyone was just mindlessly praising this. I went to the Sydney premiere, and chunks of the audience walked out. I think that the problem with the film is that it wasn't actually a film so much as a 'clever clever' attempt to be hip, play dress-up and film some beautiful sets. The concept of a 'script' or 'character development' seemed to be completely foreign to an otherwise excellent groups of actors and filmmakers. There was more substance in the mocktails they were handing out before we went inside. I glanced at my watch at what seemed to be an hour into this, and it had only been twenty minutes. So much promise, so little delivery.

As for my own list of worst films I saw in 2006, I'd like to include:

Marie Antoinette
The Black Dahlia
Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning
How Much Do You Love Me?
Mission Impossible III
Scary Movie 4
March of the Penguins
Match Point
and...
(deep breath)
Cars (don't hit me Junkie, we've already had this argument )

Commence the public beatings.

Loomis wrote:March of the Penguins

Wasn't that a 2005 release?

Loomis wrote:

Just Myself wrote: Actually, I believe your pretty wrong. As Roeper so correctly put it, Marie Antoinette is a frothy milkshake with no nutrients. Yeah, it's pretty to look out, but it's mind-numbingly dull, and honestly, how many times can the relatively modern soundtrack in a period piece setting work? It suited A Knight's Tale, as it was fast paced and lively; MA was so slow it made its already bloated 2 hour 3 minute running time seem like an eternity. How is this piece of fashion porn the second best film of the year?

Hurrah! I was starting to think everyone was just mindlessly praising this. I went to the Sydney premiere, and chunks of the audience walked out. I think that the problem with the film is that it wasn't actually a film so much as a 'clever clever' attempt to be hip, play dress-up and film some beautiful sets. The concept of a 'script' or 'character development' seemed to be completely foreign to an otherwise excellent groups of actors and filmmakers. There was more substance in the mocktails they were handing out before we went inside. I glanced at my watch at what seemed to be an hour into this, and it had only been twenty minutes. So much promise, so little delivery.

Thank God, I thought I was the only one. I honestly don't get why so many people love that film. I was mind-numbingly bored throughout the whole thing. I can understand making art play a large part in it, but at least make it interesting.

Cheers,
JM

Lazario wrote:

Loomis wrote:March of the Penguins

Wasn't that a 2005 release?

Yeah, but the Loomis said films he *saw* in 2006, not films *released* in 2006. Match Point is on his list too, even though it's a 2005 film as well. I still haven't seen March of the Penguins, but I saw Match Point and I really enjoyed it. Probably because of its similarities to A Place in the Sun and An American Tragedy.

Escapay

Wow, you got to go to the premiere Loomis! Wow, that's really cool, how'd you get them? Were there any celebrities there, or Sofia Coppola or anyone? Anyway, I still want to see that film. Though now that I think about it more, it does seem stupid to be using such a contemporary soundtrack in Marie Antoinette. It seems like she's trying to reel in a few age groups- adults for the story, and teens/adolescents for the actors and music. Anyway, I'd still like to judge it for myself.
And Escapay, March of the Penguins, and Match Point were both released in Australia in 2006, not just films that Loomis saw in 06. You were right, but I couldn't but correct you.
-James

James wrote:And Escapay, March of the Penguins, and Match Point were both released in Australia in 2006, not just films that Loomis saw in 06. You were right, but I couldn't but correct you.
-James

Ah, so we are both right, and so is Loomis (of course, as he saw the movies...unless he didn't and is pretending!)

Escapay

Loomis wrote: Marie Antoinette

March of the Penguins
Match Point
and...
Cars
Commence the public beatings.

You have now been beaten by castleinthesky for those 4 inclusions.