Did I say it was an instant classic? Deserving of Oscars. NO. I found it to be a very entertaining film, but like I stated in my review, no Oscar nods for it.
Posts: 2462 | Location: Earth | Registered: April 11, 2005
Well then, count yourself among the discerning few who AREN'T taken in by another of the Coen Bros.' misses. Still, a B+? This isn't kindergarten, you know.
The Coens have made some great movies, and even more stinkers. Don't encourage them to continue making movies destined for the Blockbuster bargain bin.
Originally posted by A. DeWitt: Well then, count yourself among the discerning few who AREN'T taken in by another of the Coen Bros.' misses. Still, a B+? This isn't kindergarten, you know.
The Coens have made some great movies, and even more stinkers. Don't encourage them to continue making movies destined for the Blockbuster bargain bin.
Burn has what I consider to be, a smart and quirky screen play. Prepare yourself for it being remembered come Oscar time. Anything with Pitt or Jolie, and you get all upset. I dont suppose it would do any good to suggest you actually see this movie, even though you may decide beforehand that you are going to hate it no matter what. Then, when you still abhor it, your opinion would be accepted as ok, at least by me. Sigh...you are so difficult sometimes. Keep it up though.....
This message has been edited. Last edited by: babypook,
Posts: 7489 | Location: canada | Registered: December 22, 2005
It's not Brad Pitt or even Angelina Jolie. It's that the Coens continually portray EVERYONE as idiotic. If not idiotic, then evil, take your choice. (Do I sound like another GDer here?) I am getting tired of them laughing at and condescending to the audience, even during No Country for Old Men, a smirky and sophomoric swipe at Cormac McCarthy's novel which I cannot find in myself to support as Best Picture of 2007.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: A. DeWitt,
I've never felt 'laughed at', by this nor any of their films. I was laughing with them. And really, some of these sorrowful characters need to be laughed at. It's either that, or tear my hair out in dismay. The McDormand character especially, was quite a commentary on how our 'information' is controlled and steered. You are, of course free to despise/stayclearof a film even if you havent seen it. For example, I'm not going to rush off to see The Stoning of Soraya M, even if, the quality of that film is very good.
Posts: 7489 | Location: canada | Registered: December 22, 2005
Originally posted by babypook: I've never felt 'laughed at', by this nor any of their films. I was laughing with them. And really, some of these sorrowful characters need to be laughed at. It's either that, or tear my hair out in dismay. The McDormand character especially, was quite a commentary on how our 'information' is controlled and steered. You are, of course free to despise/stayclearof a film even if you havent seen it. For example, I'm not going to rush off to see The Stoning of Soraya M, even if, the quality of that film is very good.
OK, but what does the McDormand character want? Are you proud of her?
I do not get the bad reviews for this film. Is it a Oscar calibre film? Probably not but it damn funny and probably one of the funniest films all season and the performances are all stellar.
Frances, John, Brad, George, and Tilda all are great in their roles.
Posts: 1351 | Location: Providence RI USA | Registered: November 29, 2001
I apologize if I caused offense by casting aspersions on anyone who likes this movie. I am hard on the Coen Bros. and their fans because I expect more from them, which is a backhanded compliment, but still a compliment, and I welcome your rebuttals.
Speaking of Brad Pitt's romantical yearnings, isn't that ex-girlfriend Gwyneth Paltrow in a print ad for Tod's wearing some kind of pelt on her back? Animal hides? Is that what all the overprivileged & underemployed are wearing in foggy old London nowadays?
Originally posted by A. DeWitt: Speaking of Brad Pitt's romantical yearnings, isn't that ex-girlfriend Gwyneth Paltrow in a print ad for Tod's wearing some kind of pelt on her back? Animal hides? Is that what all the overprivileged & underemployed are wearing in foggy old London nowadays?
Watch out Gwyneth, here comes PETA!!!
Really? I thought she was mostly a vegetarian.
Posts: 16765 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
Originally posted by A. DeWitt: Speaking of Brad Pitt's romantical yearnings, isn't that ex-girlfriend Gwyneth Paltrow in a print ad for Tod's wearing some kind of pelt on her back? Animal hides? Is that what all the overprivileged & underemployed are wearing in foggy old London nowadays?
Watch out Gwyneth, here comes PETA!!!
Really? I thought she was mostly a vegetarian.
That was my impression as well, but see for yourself:
Originally posted by A. DeWitt: Speaking of Brad Pitt's romantical yearnings, isn't that ex-girlfriend Gwyneth Paltrow in a print ad for Tod's wearing some kind of pelt on her back? Animal hides? Is that what all the overprivileged & underemployed are wearing in foggy old London nowadays?
Watch out Gwyneth, here comes PETA!!!
Really? I thought she was mostly a vegetarian.
That was my impression as well, but see for yourself:
It's real. The people at PETA told me. I am, a card-carrying member of this, and many other animal welfare groups, and I'm not ashamed of that. She's received videotapes and letters showing the cruelty and inhumanity these fur-bearing animals suffer, but she has not responded.
Posts: 7489 | Location: canada | Registered: December 22, 2005
LOS ANGELES - Brad Pitt has donated $100,000 to fight California's November ballot initiative that would overturn the state Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage.
It's the first time voters will be asked to ban same-sex marriage in a state where gay couples already have won the right to wed. Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts and California.
It's the first time voters will be asked to decide the issue in either California or Massachusetts — the states where gays have won the right to wed.
"Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn't harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8," Pitt said Wednesday.
Trevor Neilson, Pitt's political and philanthropic adviser, told The Associated Press that Pitt was surprised that his colleagues in the entertainment industry had not donated more money to support the battle against Proposition 8.
Earlier in the week, Pitt and Angelina Jolie announced they donated $2 million to help fight HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis in Ethiopia.
Originally posted by babypook: I've never felt 'laughed at', by this nor any of their films. I was laughing with them. And really, some of these sorrowful characters need to be laughed at. It's either that, or tear my hair out in dismay. The McDormand character especially, was quite a commentary on how our 'information' is controlled and steered. You are, of course free to despise/stayclearof a film even if you havent seen it. For example, I'm not going to rush off to see The Stoning of Soraya M, even if, the quality of that film is very good.
I got the distinct impression her character was being made fun of for "positive thinking" as well as her obsessions with looks and men as "winners". Quite ironic in the end though.
Initially I felt McDormand(and Pitt and Clooney) was over the top but it's now occurred to me that it was deliberate.
"when the storm breaks some are done with terror and some spread their wings like eagles and soar".
Posts: 413 | Location: Pittsburgh, PA | Registered: January 16, 2005
Originally posted by babypook: I've never felt 'laughed at', by this nor any of their films. I was laughing with them. And really, some of these sorrowful characters need to be laughed at. It's either that, or tear my hair out in dismay. The McDormand character especially, was quite a commentary on how our 'information' is controlled and steered. You are, of course free to despise/stayclearof a film even if you havent seen it. For example, I'm not going to rush off to see The Stoning of Soraya M, even if, the quality of that film is very good.
I got the distinct impression her character was being made fun of for "positive thinking" as well as her obsessions with looks and men as "winners". Quite ironic in the end though.
Initially I felt McDormand(and Pitt and Clooney) was over the top but it's now occurred to me that it was deliberate.
I have no doubt that the over-the-top style of acting in the film was deliberate. I just didn't think it worked and Clooney and McDormand pretty much gave two of the worst performances they have ever given. That is not to say over-the-top acting cannot work or even that it cannot work in other Coen bros. films. It has. Nicolas Cage & Holly Hunter in "Raising Arizona", Frances McDormand & William H. Macy in "Fargo", George Clooney in "O, Brother Where Art Thou?" all gave wonderfully over-the-top performances. In this film it didn't work and was constantly annoying.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: pacinofan,
Posts: 16765 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
Originally posted by babypook: I've never felt 'laughed at', by this nor any of their films. I was laughing with them. And really, some of these sorrowful characters need to be laughed at. It's either that, or tear my hair out in dismay. The McDormand character especially, was quite a commentary on how our 'information' is controlled and steered. You are, of course free to despise/stayclearof a film even if you havent seen it. For example, I'm not going to rush off to see The Stoning of Soraya M, even if, the quality of that film is very good.
I got the distinct impression her character was being made fun of for "positive thinking" as well as her obsessions with looks and men as "winners". Quite ironic in the end though.
Initially I felt McDormand(and Pitt and Clooney) was over the top but it's now occurred to me that it was deliberate.
I have no doubt that the over-the-top style of acting in the film was deliberate. I just didn't think it worked and Clooney and McDormand pretty much gave two of the worst performances they have ever given. That is not to say over-the-top acting cannot work or even that it cannot work in other Coen bros. films. It has. Nicolas Cage & Holly Hunter in "Raising Arizona", Frances McDormand & William H. Macy in "Fargo", George Clooney in "O, Brother Where Art Thou?" all gave wonderfully over-the-top performances. In this film it didn't work and was constantly annoying.
I agree that those performances were too hammy but Malkovich,Swinton and the others who were more natural seemed to balance it out . I'll probably see it again since some of the scenes were really laugh out loud for me.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: cleo,
"when the storm breaks some are done with terror and some spread their wings like eagles and soar".
Posts: 413 | Location: Pittsburgh, PA | Registered: January 16, 2005
