|
|
Post by Vits on Jan 22, 2018 18:53:49 GMT
Please, ignore the horror/adventure movie title. This is a comedy. During his act, a magician named VOLTAN hypnotizes 2 employees from an insurance company: C.W. BRIGGS (an investigator) and BETTY ANN FITZGERALD (an efficiency expert who's having an affair with her boss). He makes them think they're in love (they actually hate each other) in order to entertain the audience. However, the subsequent nights, VOLTAN calls them, hypnotizes them and orders them to steal jewels for him. The performances are good, but the actors are given the wrong direction during banters. You see, this is a tribute to the old screwball comedies where characters would always talk incredibly fast. It didn't really work back then and it doesn't work now. No, I'm not saying they should always talk incredibly slow. The problem is always talking at the same speed and also with the same entonation. Even if the dialogue is clever, banters need rhythm. How can something be dynamic without variety? How can a punchline or a funny insult make an impact if they're treated like any other line? ------------------------------------- You can read the full review in my blog (in English, in Spanish or in Italian) and/or watch the video review:
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 24, 2018 23:50:25 GMT
I generally like nostalgia pieces but there are exceptions. I had the same problem with the Coen brothers' The Hudsucker Proxy (1994). I haven't seen Radioland Murders.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jan 25, 2018 5:38:24 GMT
I liked the Hudsucker Proxy ("He's such a nice man I will give him the double stitch anyway"). The only Allen movie I have seen after being forced to watch Annie Hall was Shadows and Fog which I only watched because of the German Expressionism homages--I was not impressed. Think of all the audience-friendly films that could be made instead of Allen's films which will go down a giant sinkhole. He's not the only one to get a welfare funding card from the studios but he's the most obvious after Kubrick.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jan 26, 2018 8:52:01 GMT
Think of all the audience-friendly films that could be made instead of Allen's films which will go down a giant sinkhole. He's not the only one to get a welfare funding card from the studios but he's the most obvious after Kubrick. Ummm... What?!
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jan 26, 2018 9:17:46 GMT
For years and years we have been told that Hollywood is a business and it is a consumer driven one--they give what the people want. Well, Allen has been totally immune to market politics since the 60s. Other directors like Francis Ford Coppola or Orson Welles had to struggle to get funding, but ol Woody was able to just play the clarinet--his funding has always been a lock. Same with Kubrick. And if Woody wants the biggest set in town-he's got it. I also think he can pick and choose any actor he wants--does anyone know of an actor who turned down a Woody Allen film? I don't. There are always cases of someone who said no to famous directors for one reason or another. Not with him. Because he is a genius of course. The media says so. He doesn't even need to show up for the Oscars. Not even for self-promotion.
|
|