Change Your Image
vanjamarin
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Stage Beauty (2004)
What a waste of great story and great talents! 101 on how to shoot a movie all in close-ups
This movie wasn't shown in Croatia in Cinematic Distribution, so I waited till now and saw it on "Pay per view" video-edition. I was expecting a lot. Must say that I haven't red any of other user comments 'cause I want to write this without any impression of other viewers. Ergo - I sat down, turned on my plasma, home cinema and got ready for, as I was excepting, at least a very nice visual experience. That is somehow what I excepted most of this movie. First to get me in the mood year of 16xx.
Only thing that can maybe extenuate my disappointment is the fact that this film was made on very, very, very tight budget! I am hoping that could be the reason;
Or all the money went on for paying actor's fees! However, I was watching the very talented director (who directed one of my personal TOP 20 movies 'IRIS') who put together great cast and great story, and then said - "You know, we ain't got no more money"... Cause there's no other way that I can explain literally 95% of the movie being shot in close-up shots with maximum 6 feet visible around the actors - First I thought, OK, Director's got a point... But after figuring out that the widest shot went from Medium-Close-Up or (wow) even MEDIUM SHOT I figured out something was wrong... If he wanted to apply some claustrophobic feeling, there would for sure be used more directing techniques with more harsh light and shadows and not those Close-Ups and nothing but them. There are twice in the movie what could be called Total or establishing shot - when we see people in theater (spectators), and that is only TOTAL in the movie. Not a second of old London. No word about some great Production Design or even good costumes. Everything seems to be taken out of some old movies (like Shakespeare in Love) - and all those close-ups are, of course, shot with shallow depth of field and all we can see except actors are some blurred curtains in different colors.. Only those "theater stages" that could've looked like being made of paper also did look so. It was only thing that clapped. But even on those stages, except millisecond inserts of Medium shots, everything is again close-up. So many huge faces on the screen all the time... No action, no moving of the bodies... And although I loved Billy Crudup in few of his films, including guitar player in Almost Famous, this film again proves to me that he ain't got strength to be a lead actor yet... He ain't thick enough, simply not firm enough... I don't buy it. On the other side, his opponent "beautiful Julia" is an actress that I love in each of her movies, but in this film, again, all acting they could do was with the mimic of their faces and none of them is really some great character-actor...
And following this written above, I can only conclude that so many great actors, who did shine-on for moments, but were wasted in this movie - Rupert Everet, Tom Wilkinson, Ben Chaplin - they were all there, ready to make it, but - to summarize it - I think I would've gotten much more from theater stage play then from this Directors exercise of making entire film in close-up - medium close-up shooting... I see many people were interested - Robert DeNiro was one of Producers, great Editor was cutting it, good composer (whose music seemed totally "out of time" didn't belong to that period at all), as also seemed many scenes (like cottage scene, where they sleep together in bed for the first time) - The movie totally lacked in bringing me in... Into time of story, into story itself, into believing to those huge faces that simply lacked some opportunity to act with their bodies as well...
Don't know... I expected too much maybe - but this is definitely the biggest disappointment in years!
I would like someone to explain me where the catch 22 is... I dunno... I am film student - I study direction, dramaturgy, cinematography, editing, lightning and production - a lot about movie history and movie theory... I simply found nothing worth here... Weak... And I am sorry cause there are bunch of artists I love in this project... How did they flop like that ?
PS I think I'll be avoiding close-ups in my documentaries and video clips quite a lot in next few weeks. :)
Vanja Marin Zagreb, Croatia Europe
Speaking of Sex (2001)
Who pays production costs for such a crap???
This film really left me wondering for quite a while after I saw it... First (as trying to be as self critic as I can), I thought something was wrong with me... Maybe I've missed something... Some irony... Some parody... Some...whatever...
But... NO!!! Unfortunately not!
Reading all other User Reviews, I can only say that comedy taste of Americans and us, Europeans is obviously sooo different... (Which is totally OK)...
But, from my point of view, I must say I am shocked with what a crap they spent their money on!?!? I mean, there are so many great stories that never find a producer or studio, so many talented directors, young comedy actors...
And, instead of trying to figure some of them out, since they are already throwing away a bag of money, they do the worst possible thing...
Choose ridiculous scenario (that has NOTHING in it), they assemble a Golden Cast of actors and then they produce Catastrophe...
I mean, what was that James Spader story in this movie??? Him trying to act as Jim Carrey on Acid (why the hell didn't they take Carrey for the role then, and not the usually great James Spader, who looks ridiculous in this "slap-stick of 22nd century" comedy)...
Right, as said in many reviews before, Bill Murray and Mrs.O'Hara try to save the film, but not enough space and room and good lines and inventive directing and nothing...
Everything is so flat!!! Just dig out the lightning in the movie... Those flat faces, no shadow anywhere (not even on those in depth walls In just one shot I spotted some Venetian blinds shadow on the wall behind the actors ----- oh, what a try!!!)...
Only decent looking scenes (in matter of Production design, light and direction) are the scenes taking place in this "statement taking room" where we have entire cast in the scene....
Don't know... Maybe those years I've spent on Movie and Theater Academy made a movie geek out of me, and maybe I am watching too many movies and maybe I am watching them too "technically", but, again, I really tried hard to find at least one simple tiny good detail about this film... And I found none...
I even found NO reason to even try to get interested in making the one --- and I really wonder how on earth did those producers succeed in lining up all those people --- from director to the last actor --- to appear in such a nothing!!!!
No offence, please!!! Just my point of view!!!
The Story of Us (1999)
What a cliché!
What a cliché! I can't believe it! The direction is done like by some robot mathematician... If there weren't for two major stars, this would be one of million "Movies of the Week" with the very same problematic subject and very well known Hollywood happy ending...
Of course, there's always someone who understands and needs such topics, gets into it', and I am surely glad for the people who can get satisfied just by it! (By the story itself, I mean). And so often, I am sorry, but I can't.
Don't get me wrong! I don't think that I am better then normal' movie fans... I am just professionally attached to movie business...
And from that point of view, I can't understand what Mr. Rainer needed this for... Doing remake of the movies he's already done and doing it worse...
Big stars like Pfeiffer and Willis will always bring viewers, but I don't think that these are any near their best roles at all!
And I really feel bad when it comes to director's work... So, so, so without any trying to do nothing... This 3 point camera (just like in every Sitcom), no movements, no nothing, everything so same, every shot cut after same amount of seconds - (of course it can be intended), but then you notice this attention (like in W. Allen films, for example)...
In this one, You can notice that each and every shot was taken from 3 main positions and then the film reel was thrown into editing room (I wonder if director ever went into editing room at all until it was already finished!)....
And entire movie is edited with disturbingly mathematically perfectly counted timing...
I've already mentioned 3 cameras, then about 30-40 shots in every scene, and every scene lasts for 1.5 min... And that is it.... Few times in the movie we have some flashback pieces (like postcards), that dissolve into each other and, of course, always last exactly 45 seconds I mean, it is not that I am sitting down in front of TV and counting seconds whenever watching movies, but this was sooo noticeable!)... There are 2 longer scenes (about 4.5 5 min) which are both having same boring crescendo' starting calmly and peacefully and finishing with someone crying and screaming! And then the music that leads us in most scenes, then fades out just before first word is about to be spoken.... Too robotically!!! (If such a word exists)....
I totally understand that many times this is, as said before, intentional direction, but this one was like "hey, let's get this MOW done even faster, and everyone can go home! Bye!!!!"
Please, prove me wrong! Teach me better!!!
Zivi bili pa vidjeli (1979)
Film about young people struggling with real life at the end of Tito's era in Yugoslavia
-Janko is just finishing his University of architecture, when falling in love with Martina, the daughter of big Architect-studio CEO. Story is happening in Zagreb, Croatia (then still Yugoslavia).
-He (Janko), being from a poor family, having to take care of himself fully, supporting both his school and life, comes in good favor of Martina's father who employs him in his company (It is a public, state company, where Martina father is CEO! Back then there were very few private companies in socialistic Yugoslavia...)
However, being a young, idealistic, rebel young man, Janko can't close his eyes over big corruption that is going on in business... For exposing the irregularities, he's being expelled from everything, and his struggle becomes even harder! At the same time, Martina gets pregnant, and he, suddenly, has to think not only about himself, but also how to take care of 'family of three'....
-Film was shot in "New Wave" era in former Yugoslavia... It was very important time (late 70's and early 80's) when the hardest wall of Tito's socialism was just breaking down, and young generations were finally breaking out... Kind of generation-revolution (something that probably happened in late 60s in the west)...
-Two guys who wrote and directed the film,Bruno Gamulin and Milivoj Puhlovski, former students and today both professors at 'Academy of Dramatic Arts' in Zagreb, did their homage to those times... They were well connected to the rest of the art scene of the time! (The music was scored by one of the most popular New Wave bands in former Yugoslavia, 'Buldozer')...
Watching the movie today, from quite a time distance, it may seem little naive and childish, but it is very important to know and understand the time and place it came from...
Its modest budget probably affected some of movie making (direction is sometimes quite simple, long shots, dialogs that are not cut, but just panned, lot of 'mute shooting' and adding the entire sound later on, which is then quite noticeable - I can't tell how much of those details were done on purpose, and how many of them are caused by budget tightness (and I must say that budget tightness then was really the matter of even having enough film reel - so probably no more then 1 or 2 repetitions were possible, as well as cutting shots and taking them from many various angles etc.)... I doubt that they could afford much of the set decoration, nor any rich scene lighting!
But, it's got a rhythm, quite a good acting (much better then Croatian films offer nowadays, I am afraid) and it had a story (another thing Croatian film lacks in last decade)... The story was maybe a bit naive, but, I must repeat, just from today's point of view!
Back than it was the time when young people really have had that great feeling of having some influence and being able to make some changes!!!
Sweet and Lowdown (1999)
Trying to be fascinated, but I am hardly succeeding...
Great Woody Allen had lot of masterworks and many flops... And this one, I don't know where to put...
I am Woody Allen's great admirer (more then a fan). As well, I am big admirer of 30's jazz music... And big Fan of Django!!! So, looking from this point of view, the movie had all predispositions to blast me off of my feet! Somehow, it didn't...
Although the story is great (so vivid and real, that I was sure that Emmet way a real character, although, I was very confused that I've never heard of him - since I am pretty informed of most of the Artist of that era. Still, most of the movie (especially after "documentary", testimonial parts) I was sure Emmet was a real guy... I spent some time on internet after movie, trying to find something about him... Until I visited PROImdb and found out in these reviews, that Emmet was fictional character. Make's me almost sorry:)!
Apart from that, S. Penn and S. Morthon (mute girl) builded great characters, but here comes the problem - Great story, great actors and very often plot gets into very boring sequences. How and why, I am not sure!?!
Uma Thurman - hm, character that was not that developed - it wasn't Woody's film, she probably wouldn't even read the script!
Woody directed it little bit more "anonymously" than his other stuff (If I didn't know it was his film, I couldn't recognize his "handwriting"..) Although there are some of his trademarks (those long shots,i.e., whole scenes made of one or two of them.
Photography is somehow much more vivid then Allen's usually (with warm and bluriesh colors), but, ok, it's history-era movie...
Well, I don't even know why I went on writing this review - I usually don't do this. This is my very first review on IMDB since many years...
Maybe because I am more confused with "what to think" that ever before...
However; maybe that was Woody's intention!:)