Originally posted by fable
Have you tried Lang's M? It's frequently called the first film noir. It was also the first film role of Peter Lorre, who looks incredibly young. Fine work with a great deal of tension.
It's one of the great movies. Fritz Lang is one of the most inspired film-makers ever. It is my favorite none US made film although I'm not a huge fan, and have not seen many, not even the classic Battleship Potemkin (which I'm dying to see) or Amelie (which to me would be a surrender to hype- not unlike you and Star Wars
), which I know you loved and now own (I remember everything mentioned in any of my threads).
I was sold just by Lorre's whisteling, not to mention his chilling perfomance.
I was just recently catching up and re-viewing several classics (12 Angry Men, Chinatown, The man who shot Liberty Valance, Serpico, The Lion in winter and many more) and in them there were Lorre's wonderfull performances in Casablanca and The Maltese Falcon. I still crack up everytime he says 'You, you bloated idiot!', or when he pulls the gun on Bogart, who just handed the gun to him, and Bogart cracks up (Both in Falcon).
Originally posted by VoodooDali
Anyone here see The Hours? I was blown away by it.
I posted my review in another thread- so I'll copy it to here.
<SNIP>
I'm not sure yet to what degree I like it, but it was very well made, and had quite a few good performances.
I think I've kept it spoiler free, but if you don't want any details, read no further.
It's about 3 women- in 1941, 1951, 2001, who are in some way affected by the book 'Mrs. Dolloway' By virginia Woolf, who is the first character. The movie is about one day in each's life. The three are played very well by Nicole Kidman (Woolf), Julliane Moore (1951) and Merryl streep (2001). Although the stories don't exactly parallel each other, their days all start with breakfast, all involve planning for a party, and all end in saddness.
I think it was hard to connect with the main 3 characters, as they have only 30-35 minutes screen time each, but at least when each one is on screen, I really felt for them. I think Moore's performance struck me most, although Streep's day was most meaningful to me, probably because it was more subdued. I felt that Kidman was too much the setting of the story, and not as much part of it.
The movie has great suppoting characters, actors, and performances.
In Kidman's there is Stephen Dillane's very subdued performance as Mr. Woolf and Miranda Richrdson's performance as her sister, or sister in law (I'm not clear as to which, although I think it's the former).
In Moore's there's Toni Collet, who, although she's only in one scene laft a acharacter with real presence, plus her accent in perfect, far better than it was in Changing Lanes.
There's John C. Reilly, in only three scenes, but I felt he brought to the movie his characters from 'Magnolia' and 'The Good Girl' (Which I just saw on Wednsday). He really is a great actor. This is the fourth movie I've seen him in (As I said, I paln to see the fifth- Chicago, either this coming week or next week), and although he was very similar in three of them, 'Gangs of New York' shows what he could do with a different kind of role.
Jack Rovello, as Moore's son, is also great, especialy for a child actor. He's one of the most adorable kids I've ever seen.
In Streep there are a few- Alisson Janney as her lover, Claire Danes is great as her daughter, Jeff Daniels gives a great one scene performance, and most importantly- Ed Harris gives another wonderful performance as her former lover- he really is one of the greatest actors ever.
The appearence in the end of another character had a real effect on me. That person really gives another element to the story.
It was a good movie, but not great. I think the fact that there was almost no continuity between the elements in the different stories took away from it for me. A movie built primarily by performances, and significantly less by the material, and it should be the other way around.
Although there extremely different movies, and cannot be compared in any of there details, Gangs of New York was IMO far superior and had a much more positive and lasting effects. Definatly should've gotten the globe and should get the oscar. Although I think I'd root for The hours for best ensamble in the SAG awards, which traditionaly does a pretty good job in that category- last year it went to Gosford Park, probably the best ensamble movie I've seen. <SNIP>
I have to see it again to form a concrete opinion, but I still think it was a movie primarily based in performances, less in the story.
Although I was blown away by a certain someone's appearence in the end, and Harris' final scene in the movie. (I'm being very vague for the spoiler free ones among us)
