 |
|
 Home
Products
Store
Forum
Warehouse
Contact Us
|
|
|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: U - 571
|
|
|
Scott Magie
Film Handler
Posts: 73
From: St. Albans, VT USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 05-20-2000 11:57 PM
Okay, I'm joining the fray late, 'cuz I don't read these until I've seen 'em. U-571: good formulaic fun for the whole family. Okay, now on to the REAL discussion:
THE THIN RED LINE:
This film had the best trailer ever made. It had the best poster ever designed.
Yet it sucked.
And I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the cinematography sucked. Now, before you all get huffy, let me explain myself. TRL was a compilation of GREAT SHOTS. Great shots do NOT make great cinematography. The cinematography in this film screamed, "Look at me... I'm beautiful cinematography!" Cinematography is supposed to support the story, not the other way around. Since TRL didn't have a story, all it had (besides the aforementioned performances by Penn and Nolte) was a bunch of cool shots. And the few times that the shots were actually perfect for the story, the editor screwed it up by cutting away too soon. This film lacked everything that a film should have. Thus, it sucks.
And oh yeah, Saving Private Ryan's cinematography is thousands of times better than The TRL. Why? Because it supports the story and includes the viewer in it. This could explain why millions more people enjoyed SPR than TRL. Sure Spielberg's a master at "sucking" the audience in... THAT'S WHAT FILMMAKING IS! Terrance is just a master at sucking. I've never even seen an interview with the man, but TRL makes me think of him as a pretentious egotist.
So there!
I'm getting mad, so I think I'll go to bed. ------------------
Scott A. Magie scoooot@hotmail.com
"Anybody wanna peanut?"
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dwayne Caldwell
Master Film Handler
Posts: 323
From: Rockwall, TX, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted 05-21-2000 12:26 AM
I agree, Scott. The cinematography should support the story. After all, what is a movie but a story with pictures. But I still like John Toll's work just because the colors are so pretty. I considered him as more of a National Geographic cinematographer than a movie cinematographer in that film because the story sucked. So the only things you had to work with of any value were the pictures and the music. Maybe Malick thought the movie would be more surreal that way, but you still have to have an interesting story for the pictures to tell. Otherwise, it's all just a nice big painting. Malick screwed it up with the editing and the narratives and the long drawn out approach of his. There was a good story in there somewhere, but it obviously didn't make it to the screen very well due to Malick's approach. So those pretty pictures are wasted. I really should have named this topic The Thin Red Line. I think only half the posts on this thread are about U-571. I still think U-571 is the best movie I've seen this year. And no. I haven't seen any of the art films this year yet. ------------------
The man with the magic hands.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic