The Hot Blog

Redford's post-SPY GAME eye tuck is consistently distracting.

Streep is such a ham these days. And Cruise's *third billing* (at least according to the trailer) is pretty transparent.

That trailer just makes the movie look like self-important Hollywood BS. So sick of that genre.

though it was written by the guy who wrote The Kingdom, so one can hope.

Reford's last two directing efforts have bordered on the dreadful. So I really am not holding out for this one. Another "topical" political film this winter is Charlie Wilson's War with Hanks, Roberts and PS Hoffman. I can't wait to see the trailer, or ads for that.

It looks more complicated than the usual Hollywood BS to me - maybe it's actually a debate instead of just hammering talking points into your head for two hours.

I hope you're right.

The Guardian article in which this movie and all the others are mentioned will be followed up in eight months by one about how they all flopped.

While I can't say that seeing actors with, shock, wrinkles is abhorant, the poster itself is lazy and the movie doesn't look that flash. We'll see, I guess. I can see it easily being this year's The Good Sherpherd. Nice cast, note-worthy director, seemingly important issue, but just not exciting enough.

I rewatched The Conversation last night and am still amazed at how great that film is and it again reminds one of why the current crop of political films is so poor. They are too explicit, too blunt and too angry and as such lack poetry, metaphor and art.

The Conversation obviously relates to Watergate but that is never mentioned and no political parties are revealed. Hence the film transcends its era. It is about ideas, not political agendas.

This is the reason why the original Apocalypse Now is so powerful because it doesn't - have - to be about Vietnam. When Redux added explicit discussions about the Vietnam war it made the film smaller and poorer.

This seems very much cut from that cloth. Redford is obviously talented and is actually one of my favourite actors but a moderate he is not. I am also cynical enough to believe that Cruise took this role as a form of career rehabilitation.

He was seen as a loon; play a one-dimensional evil Repub, then be welcomed back to the fold.

Nicol D. I'm 110% with you on the Conversation. What a fantastic film that very much played with how society was feeling at that time. It's the perfect "Watergate" movie, but not about watergate other than spying and privacy and it's WAY more relevant today.

I don't quite agree with you on Cruise though. This is the first film from his United Artists venture, so I think he felt his appearance might boost the box office some. but, a cynical side to me thinks you might be on to something.

Hopscotch,

I also love the ending to The Conversation, where the final camera pan can itself be seen as the surveillance camera that Hackman missed. Sad that he has quietly gone into retirement.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: