(BP) Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 James Woods in The Specialist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 I don't believe in vampires. But can we all agree those were fucking vampires? Probably not word for word, but a great line. A great movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curt McGirt Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Thinking about Salma Hayek made me remember her in that awful Oliver Stone cash-grab Savages. And that in turn reminded me of Cameron Diaz and Javier Bardem looking ridiculous in that awful Ridley Scott cash-grab The Counselor. Man, the lengths some talents will go to to pay the rent on their endless pool. Danny Trejo has probably been good in too many bad movies to count. Brad Dourif, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Thinking about Salma Hayek made me remember her in that awful Oliver Stone cash-grab Savages. And that in turn reminded me of Cameron Diaz and Javier Bardem looking ridiculous in that awful Ridley Scott cash-grab The Counselor. Man, the lengths some talents will go to to pay the rent on their endless pool. Most (if not all) mainstream movies are cash grabs when you think about it. Savages and The Counselor are garbage movies because they're garbage movies. They could have been indie films and still been awful especially if Cormac McCarthy is writing a screenplay for a film. Savages could have been made into a halfway decent movie if they decided what it wanted to be and cut out some of the cliché characters. It was too violent and absurd to be a Seth Rogen stoner adventurer film and way too polished to be a Tarantino film. There was nothing to think about at all when it came to a plot so it wasn't even an Oliver Stone film besides his name being in the credits. Hayek's character is one that should have been cut out and replaced. I don't get why actresses like her and Jennifer Lopez want to play Griselda Blanco or a character closely based off of her. The problem is both Jennifer and Salma look stunning and have bodies straight out of a comic book. The whole thing about Griselda Blanco is she looks like an English bulldog in the face and has a body like a lottery ball. However, she becomes one of the most powerful and desirable women in the drug game DESPITE all that. She was atrocious looking her entire life. That is what makes her story intriguing. Those two women don't fit that at all. Catherine Zeta-Jones is definitely not that either. It would be like Taye Diggs or Morris Chestnut playing Biggie in Notorious. The whole thing about Christopher Wallace is that he is such a dope lyricist that him being fat, black, and ugly ("Heartthrob never / Black and ugly as ever") makes him seem like the coolest motherfucker on the planet. So for Salma to be trying to do that character, it's just so flat and unbelievable. It's also very cliché and she's overacting. Bichir and del Toro may be the only redeemable actors in the movie. However, it's been a couple years since I last seen it. However, it wasn't pretty as I remember. The Counselor may be one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. There was no one in even close to be redeemable in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curt McGirt Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 The whole thing about Griselda Blanco is she looks like an English bulldog in the face and has a body like a lottery ball. That's hilarious considering you could have been murdered for writing that when she was alive if she saw it. And of course, it's completely true. Savages and The Counselor seem like true cash-grabs more than other films because 1. they're directed by really good directors, and 2. it seems like they were made just to get money for other projects -- Savages, in particular, which Stone was honest about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Ridley Scott just directs films. That's what he does. The Counselor was made on what? $25 million? Exodus was like 5x the budget and still terrible. You just need to accept that at this point, everything is 50/50 with him. But to me, both of those movies are just stuff Hollywood tends to crank out of their mill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curt McGirt Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 God I forgot about that travesty (Exodus). And now that I look it up and realize Prometheus, which I could see him wanting to fund, came out before The Counselor and after Robin Hood, so my narrative is false. These guys just make shit because they have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.T. Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 James Woods in The Specialist. Yeah he was one of my picks in my first post. That movie did not deserve that caliber of villain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nice Guy Eddie Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Thinking about Salma Hayek made me remember her in that awful Oliver Stone cash-grab Savages. And that in turn reminded me of Cameron Diaz and Javier Bardem looking ridiculous in that awful Ridley Scott cash-grab The Counselor. Man, the lengths some talents will go to to pay the rent on their endless pool. Danny Trejo has probably been good in too many bad movies to count. Brad Dourif, too. I think Michael Madsen can be placed in the been good in too many bad movies category as well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed Posted February 24, 2016 Author Share Posted February 24, 2016 How about Michael in Godfather Part III? Al Pacino is honestly doing a fantastic performance as a tragic guilt-ridden Shakespearean villain. Like, you just know he was channelling King Lear in his scenes. And it's great. He's just stuck with awful actors and a not-very-good plot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Who's awful in part 3? I mean, aside from Sofia Coppola, we all know THAT regrettable tragedy. But Diane Keaton, Eli Wallach, Andy Garcia, they're all doing the best they can. Nobody else matches Pacino of course, but it's the man returning after sixteen years in his all-time greatest role, of course he's gonna knock everyone else right off the screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Should I finally bite the bullet and watch Part 3? I have been avoiding that shit like it's a Jehovah Witness. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 It's not a horrible movie. It's just a thoroughly mediocre one that runs way too fucking long and can't live up to its predecessors whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(BP) Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 It's a perfectly fine mob movie. Besides the obvious issues, it didn't help that it was released the same year as Goodfellas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuetsar Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Has anyone else read Bob Evans "the kid stays in the picture?" He rips Coppola to shreds for his inability to edit and claims that the Godfather was shit until he put it back together in the editing room. Although Evans is an egomaniac and was a cokehead, Apocalypse Now and Godfather III sort of back up his point though. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Apocalypse Now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuetsar Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Wasn't it always held up as a case of improper editing? Maybe I got my wires crossed on that one. Evan also tore him to shreds for allegedly fucking up the Cotton Club. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Ah, I thought you were saying it was "shit" which would be insane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuetsar Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 No, and to elaborate a bit, Robert Evans was Paramount's head of production at the time, and when he got the first cut of the Godfather, he was like where the hell is the movie I know was shot? Because, according to him, Coppola had the movie about two hours, with a lot of the drama on the cutting room floor. Evans reedited it, and made it into the film we know today. Apparently pissed Coppola off so much, he had it in his contract that Evans couldn't have thing to do with Godfather II. He infers he helped a little on editing when all is said and done, but was a little less specific. As for the other movies, I was speculating that if Evans was telling the truth, it would explain the editing problems he had later in his career. Apologies for being vague in my earlier post. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curt McGirt Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I have no idea about Evans -- and the man seems incredibly wild in general from watching The Kid Stays In The Picture -- but then so seems Coppola. Either could be responsible. In any case Godfather III is worth a watch. The carnage is worth it alone for those with a taste for inventive film violence (helicopter attack, the San Gennaro Festival, the guys in the apartment). Plus it has an ending that is trying to be so hard to be epic that it falls flat on its face in quite a spectacular fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Apocalypse Now is widely held to be one of the best examples of a movie being SAVED by brilliant editing. Coppola infamously spent the better part of two years shooting reams and reams of footage, most of which never made it into the finished film. And the bloated Redux version makes an even better argument that the 1979 theatrical cut was perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainmakerrtv Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I kind of like the added scenes from it as isolated deleted scenes but didn't like the end product with them edited back in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I like most of them in the film. But the plantation scene ruins any concept of pace and flow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed Posted February 25, 2016 Author Share Posted February 25, 2016 Sofia in Godfather III was terrible, though. Utterly terrible. A good director? Of course. But as an actress? Embarrassing. Utterly embarrassing. One of two times I've truly found myself cringing at the screen and feeling bad for the people who had to put on a straight face and act alongside this person. Gina Carano in Fast Six was the other one. The scenes between her and Pacino must be fascinating for any acting student to watch simply for the stunning gap in talent. Admittedly, the plot was shitty, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Her final line is delivered so poorly that it almost ruins the finish of the movie. Almost, thank god you have Pacino howling like a heartbroken madman (in a context which actually justifies his overacting for once) to save things. Sofia was indeed absolutely terrible. She was simply not an actor, period, and there's nothing Francis could do to cover that up. Her lack of other major acting roles is a big indicator of how little experience she had (although IMDB hilariously claims that she was one of Queen Padme's handmaidens in The Phantom Menace and oh GOD I have never wanted more for any rumor ever to be true). For those who don't know the story, Sofia was a desperate last-minute choice by a director who'd run out of time and options. Originally it was supposed to be Julia Roberts in the part, but she dropped out; Madonna lobbied for it, but Coppola didn't want her; they were in talks with poor Rebecca Schaeffer, but that's when she got murdered; and finally it was supposed to be Winona Ryder, but she quit the production (once filming had already started) and there wasn't another backup pick. Coppola was all "fuck it, I can direct ANYONE, this'll work!" and shoved his own non-professional-performer daughter into the part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now