Page 1 of 5
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:30 am
by OscarGuy
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:16 pm
by Zahveed
Oh, I learned something new today.
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 5:54 pm
by kaytodd
Penelope wrote:"Ms." did not come into existence until the early 70s, and I'm pretty sure it's pronounced "Miz"....
That was my point exactly. I think they had the cute aboriginie kid calling Nicole's character "Miz Boss." My guess is that the effect is like Mammy, Prissy and Big Sam referring to "Miz Scarlett" rather than any aboriginal dialect.
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:45 pm
by Penelope
"Ms." did not come into existence until the early 70s, and I'm pretty sure it's pronounced "Miz"....
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:30 pm
by Zahveed
kaytodd wrote:No way! The kid actually referred to Kidman as "Ms. Boss" instead of "Miss Boss"? I hope the kid was actually saying "Miz Boss", which I understand would be consistent with this film's treatment of the aboriginies. But using the term "Ms. Boss" during that time period would be a sign of utter carelessness by everyone associated with this film.
I'm a little confused by what you mean in this statement. If Ms. and Miss are pronounced the same and mean the same by definition, then wouldn't Miz also be the same as Miss but using an Australian dialect? I don't even think that's the problem, honestly. The fact you'd have a character use the combination of "Miss" and "Boss", but not one or the other, just seems as ignorant and ridiculous as Jar Jar Binks.
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:36 pm
by kaytodd
barrybrooks8 wrote:I absolutely hated the child actor and all the clever-ish things he said ("the sun went to sleep" and every time he said "Ms. Boss" it drilled another nail into my skull).
No way! The kid actually referred to Kidman as "Ms. Boss" instead of "Miss Boss"? I hope the kid was actually saying "Miz Boss", which I understand would be consistent with this film's treatment of the aboriginies. But using the term "Ms. Boss" during that time period would be a sign of utter carelessness by everyone associated with this film.
When I first heard about this film, I had little interest in seeing someone like Baz Luhrmann making a How The West Was Won type homage to his homeland. The reviews in both the press and word of mouth from film fans pretty much guarantees I will not bother with this film unless it somehow gets nominated in some major categories. I hope not. It will be a repeat of the experience I had with The Green Mile when it was nominated for Best Picture, possibly even worse.
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 2:22 am
by barrybrooks8
I had no idea that I would hate it this much. From around the one-minute mark, I knew I was in for a long terrible experience. I absolutely hated the child actor and all the clever-ish things he said ("the sun went to sleep" and every time he said "Ms. Boss" it drilled another nail into my skull). The only nomination I can muster to assume it has a chance at is Costume, and that's only due to the fact the Kidman is that easy to dress.
I always like Nicole Kidman. I even liked some of her work here. I always seem to be defending her, too. I liked Birth, Dogville, The Golden Compass, Cold Mountain and even The Invasion when no else did. But no more! I will succumb to the rest of the America into not trusting a Nicole Kidman lead film!
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:09 am
by Damien
The Original BJ wrote:I think Baz Luhrmann was born in the wrong era: despite his love for COLOR! and CGI!!!!, his "vision" just calls out for the silent-era treatment
He should have been born in the Dark Ages, so that his one concern would have been day-to-day existence and foraging for food, and his evil ego wouldn't have had any place to spew. If he had been born in prehistoric times, he would have managed to make the most god-awful cave paintings ever. I ca imagine an archeologist stumbling upon them: "Hmmm, these were apparently a very self-indulgent people."
Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:23 pm
by The Original BJ
Horrid, just horrid. And I didn't expect to hate it like a lot of you. I like Moulin Rouge less every time I see it, but I can't deny that that film is the product of an outrageously singular vision and that its mad sense of frenzied theatricality is at least appropriate given the material. Even Romeo + Juliet, while it doesn't work for me, has moments of clever inspiration in its transfer of Shakespearen material to a pop contemporary setting.
But this is just embarrassing. The film's opening sequences feature so much poorly-played broad comedy I felt like I was watching an unknowing parody of a romantic epic. I think Baz Luhrmann was born in the wrong era: despite his love for COLOR! and CGI!!!!, his "vision" just calls out for the silent-era treatment, when he could spend lavish amounts of money on gargantuan sets and fill them with waifish blonde women over-emoting and villains who twirl their moustaches with delicious glee. (The screenplay to Titanic is practically Shakespearean compared to this hackneyed storytelling, which I won't even bother retelling.) The film basically ends about half-way through, and then, for those thinking the three hours went by surprisingly quickly, GOTCHA....! A whole new plot kicks in -- this one at least is a little better, as it's mostly dull rather than sheerly awful.
I even had problems with the visual look of the film. The camera swoops all over the place with no rhyme or reason -- it's merely drawing attention to itself and its own movement, not bringing us into the story. And the computer effects are terrible! I at least thought I'd get some pretty photography of the Australian outback in this movie, but most of it looks like ugly green-screening.
And don't even get me started on the film's racial politics, which are about as progressive as Gunga Din.
I'd bet Art Direction and Costume Oscar nods are in the bag based on budget alone. A pretty vista or two can go along way with the cinematographers, especially in a weak year, so maybe it could score there too. I think the majors are out of the question, though. At least I hope they are.
Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 12:27 pm
by OscarGuy
No, it wasn't that. It was early sequences where scenes were apparently doctored by Visual Effects. It was somewhat pretty, but distorted. Then, there's the problem of lighting which I found fairly overbalanced at times. The colors didn't seem realistic enough, more false feeling.
Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:59 am
by rolotomasi99
OscarGuy wrote:Well, without having seen the rest of the year's films, it's hard to say what it deserves in terms of nominations, but the Art Direction and Costume Design are, as Catherine Martin has proven before, terrific. There are times when I love the cinematography and other times when I wanted to shoot the cinematographer. But many of those times may have been the visual effects artists.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
that is how i felt with PEARL HARBOR. the cinematography was very pretty, but sometimes it just overwhelmed me until i actually had to look away.
Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 12:47 am
by OscarGuy
Well, without having seen the rest of the year's films, it's hard to say what it deserves in terms of nominations, but the Art Direction and Costume Design are, as Catherine Martin has proven before, terrific. There are times when I love the cinematography and other times when I wanted to shoot the cinematographer. But many of those times may have been the visual effects artists.
Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 11:03 am
by Damien
dws1982 wrote:Is Fox taking a bath in this or what? $2.9 million on Thursday.
Rupert Murdoch and Spaz Vermin -- talk about two people who deserve each other.
Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:31 am
by dws1982
Is Fox taking a bath in this or what? $2.9 million on Thursday.
Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:18 pm
by Sabin
Australia made a little less than $2.3 million on Wednesday. That comes out to less than $900 per screen.
Does that mean that Australia is a colony again?