Hard Candy For
what it's worth, Keith, you didn't miss all that much with "Hard
Candy." It was largely worth it for me for Ellen Page's eeriely adult
performance, but it really felt like a stiff, artificial two-person play
that played out at too much length. It'd make a good trouble with
David Mamet's "Oleanna." Which is not a compliment.
I'm
going to respond by pointing out that I meant "Hard Candy" and
"Oleanna" would make a good double (feature) with each other, not a good
"trouble." Stupid aphasia.
Nothing
has been as simultaneously hilarious and infuriating as the declaration
in the LA Times opinion section that the American right had found its
great intellectual and cultural representative in David Mamet. No
matter what he says, he's always been a reactionary conservative, and no
matter what anyone says, he's always been an idiot. (As a Trained
Theater Professional, I also have some decided opinions about his plays,
but I try to keep my comments under three paragraphs.)
I liked this movie Those
overhead shots were very impressive, and the multiple decapitations
were cringe-inducing in the best way. Josh Hartnett is never good, but
Danny Huston and Ben Foster were both effectively creepy. It certainly
was not a waste of time.
The
best thing I can say about this movie is that I didn't hate it. And I
was totally planning to, but it just didn't suck enough. (Although the
ending really really tried.)
But
good lord, is there a more boring leading man in the universe than Josh
Hartnett? Watching paint dry is more interesting than him fighting
vampires. Even the bad ass vampires in this!
I
thought for sure there have been a couple movies I've seen Hartnett in
where he wasn't completely awful, but upon investigation, I realized I
was thinking of Ryan Phillippe in every case.
What
in the world are you talking about? Hartnett can't hold a candle to
Ryan Phillippe, totally different poor-man's equation than the one
above. Have you seen "Way of the Gun"? Hartnett's one of those people
like Thandie Newton, you can just see them acting. I don't get that
from Phillippe.
tell me With
all the complaints, I have to wonder what constitutes a good (serious)
vampire movie. It seems like you have to go quite a ways back to find
one. And don't say 'Blade'—that's not even really a Horror movie.
'Interview
with a Vampire' isn't really Horror either. It may as well be
'Bunnicula, the movie'. For the record, I liked Coppola's 'Dracula', and
the Langella version—the original is quite stagey, especially after
they leave Transylvania, both versions of 'Nosferatu', the first two
thirds of 'The Hunger' and that's all I can think of right now.
Otherwise, I'm surprised at how many vampire movies there are vs. how
few are any good. I'm still waiting for a version of 'Carmilla'.
It FELT like 30 days I
saw this at the theater, and while it was okay, I sure felt like I was
in the theater a lot longer than the running time of the movie. Not so
much survival horror as endurance horror.
Not much talkin' I
thought this movie was wholly underwhelming but pretty decent. It's
nicely shot and has some good action and a few legit scares. When
discussing the miscasting of Hartnett/George and the flimsy story (I
agree both are a problem), it should also be noted that this movie has
very little real dialogue and only in a few instances addresses any
backstory at all (especially once the vamps show up).
In
that way I found it kind of refreshing; rather than working out all of
their stupid personal dramas while under attack by a fucking vampire
army, they just try to survive, and 90% of the dialogue is devoted to
them discussing how to survive. Even if the actors were more capable
than Hartnett/George, I really wouldn't have wanted more of their story.
The only story I wanted more of was Ben Foster's, because his character
was awesome but had absolutely no place in the movie (he does in the
comic).
I
also meant to say that while the comic itself is quite good based on
the fantastic premise and really, really inspired artwork, the writing
is TERRIBLE — cliched, cheesey, etc, etc — so in terms of the story and
character development, the source material was limited in that way.
Hard Candy
For what it's worth, Keith, you didn't miss all that much with "Hard Candy." It was largely worth it for me for Ellen Page's eeriely adult performance, but it really felt like a stiff, artificial two-person play that played out at too much length. It'd make a good trouble with David Mamet's "Oleanna." Which is not a compliment.
Doesn't sound like it's up for discussion. Tasha, a yes or no question has been opened to you. It doesn't matter if you answer or not. What do you do?
I'm going to respond by pointing out that I meant "Hard Candy" and "Oleanna" would make a good double (feature) with each other, not a good "trouble." Stupid aphasia.
Nothing has been as simultaneously hilarious and infuriating as the declaration in the LA Times opinion section that the American right had found its great intellectual and cultural representative in David Mamet. No matter what he says, he's always been a reactionary conservative, and no matter what anyone says, he's always been an idiot. (As a Trained Theater Professional, I also have some decided opinions about his plays, but I try to keep my comments under three paragraphs.)
Hey Devil Dinosaur! Are you the guy who wrote into Dan Savage this week?
I liked this movie
Those overhead shots were very impressive, and the multiple decapitations were cringe-inducing in the best way. Josh Hartnett is never good, but Danny Huston and Ben Foster were both effectively creepy. It certainly was not a waste of time.
The best thing I can say about this movie is that I didn't hate it. And I was totally planning to, but it just didn't suck enough. (Although the ending really really tried.)
But good lord, is there a more boring leading man in the universe than Josh Hartnett? Watching paint dry is more interesting than him fighting vampires. Even the bad ass vampires in this!
Could've been worse. Could've been Hayden Christensen.
I thought for sure there have been a couple movies I've seen Hartnett in where he wasn't completely awful, but upon investigation, I realized I was thinking of Ryan Phillippe in every case.
Josh Hartnet: The poor man's Ryan Phillippe.
What in the world are you talking about? Hartnett can't hold a candle to Ryan Phillippe, totally different poor-man's equation than the one above. Have you seen "Way of the Gun"? Hartnett's one of those people like Thandie Newton, you can just see them acting. I don't get that from Phillippe.
Josh Hartnet: the poor man's Keanu.
tell me
With all the complaints, I have to wonder what constitutes a good (serious) vampire movie. It seems like you have to go quite a ways back to find one. And don't say 'Blade'—that's not even really a Horror movie.
Dracula: Dead And Loving It?
Interview with the Vampire? I thought that was a gay porno.
'Interview with a Vampire' isn't really Horror either. It may as well be 'Bunnicula, the movie'. For the record, I liked Coppola's 'Dracula', and the Langella version—the original is quite stagey, especially after they leave Transylvania, both versions of 'Nosferatu', the first two thirds of 'The Hunger' and that's all I can think of right now. Otherwise, I'm surprised at how many vampire movies there are vs. how few are any good. I'm still waiting for a version of 'Carmilla'.
It's interesting that so much vampire obsession is supported by so few good vampire movies.
My vote is anything with Blacula in it.
It FELT like 30 days
I saw this at the theater, and while it was okay, I sure felt like I was in the theater a lot longer than the running time of the movie. Not so much survival horror as endurance horror.
"Ooh, look at me. I'm running around in circles."
How cute was Tina Fey when she chewed her straw and glanced over sheepishly after her and The Beeper King's shared "The Hours/The Weeks" joke?
Extremely. Extremely cute.
Tina Fey extremely cute? I won't believe it.
Believe it, chump.
Not much talkin'
I thought this movie was wholly underwhelming but pretty decent. It's nicely shot and has some good action and a few legit scares. When discussing the miscasting of Hartnett/George and the flimsy story (I agree both are a problem), it should also be noted that this movie has very little real dialogue and only in a few instances addresses any backstory at all (especially once the vamps show up).
In that way I found it kind of refreshing; rather than working out all of their stupid personal dramas while under attack by a fucking vampire army, they just try to survive, and 90% of the dialogue is devoted to them discussing how to survive. Even if the actors were more capable than Hartnett/George, I really wouldn't have wanted more of their story. The only story I wanted more of was Ben Foster's, because his character was awesome but had absolutely no place in the movie (he does in the comic).
Good point, me!
I also meant to say that while the comic itself is quite good based on the fantastic premise and really, really inspired artwork, the writing is TERRIBLE — cliched, cheesey, etc, etc — so in terms of the story and character development, the source material was limited in that way.