The Hot Blog

Wonderful - and Kim and I are going to see a screener in a few hours. Ah well. At least we'll get some alone time.

I think MovieLine was the first publication that ran a review (GI Jane) that said "this is the first Ridley Scott film that could have been made by his brotherr." Many people have been declaring variations of it at regular intervals ever since.

The truth is though that while I really do enjoy Ridley Scott's films, I find that more and more, the scripts seem tailored to his strengths (and thereby revealing his weaknesses). I have not enjoyed anything from him as much as I did Matchstick Men. It was light and seemingly effortless and did not suffer from the multi-camera long lens set-up to which he has become so prone. And it pains me to say that.

And having said that I am going to go to Body of Lies and hope that it is more than simply good.

"the second wannabe Michael Mann movie from Warner Bros this year. One became a massive worldwide hit, and though it was a quite good, it still wasn’t as good as Mann."

Is this a reference to Hancock (which I thought was more interesting than good)?

Heck, pope, I specifically remember Poland saying that about Gladiator back in the roughcut days. Something along the lines of "This is the first Ridley Scott movie that looks like it could've been made by Tony Scott".

jeffmcm: Surely you jest. Or should that be "joke"?

I'm sorry, I forgot Hancock was a Sony, not WB release. So now I'm stumped - does DP mean The Dark Knight, which was better than all Michael Mann movies I've seen except The Insider (and there it's close)?

Matro,

You have some memory!... because your comment has prompted mine and I do recall David Poland using those words. I wonder what he makes of it now.

Personally I think the two brothers have very distinctive styles not only terms of material but also color, cutting and music.

Years ago in an interview with the BBC, Ridley said "Tony is rock 'n' roll and I'm into something else."

I think, Pope, the tony/ridley thing is really a good script/bad script thing. When the script is smart and the film less hyperactive, it feels more Ridley.

Jeff just threw down on Poland's head. Beautiful. Seriously Heat; you need to accept that you are not going to win this fight. You simply will not. So let it go, guy. Let it go.

That aside; David Poland just put him on the outside looking in again. This will be fun to discuss this weekend. Yeehaw.

Yes, jeffmcm. Poland means "The Dark Knight." There. Said. Done.

Yeah, I got it; I was thrown at first because (a) The Dark Knight goes beyond even 'massive worldwide hit' I'd say, and I didn't really agree with Poland that it was 'Heat plus costumes', but then I'm not a fan of Heat and don't worship at the altar of Mann.

Dark Knight vs Mann notwithstanding, did any of you really look at this movie's trailer and think "wow, I have to see that!"? Was it clear in any way? Did you understand the gist of the film, either than it being some generic terrorism plot, with Leo and Crowe at odds about something? Sorry, not me. Trailer looked lame, some random explosions, Leo screams, Crowe chuckles. And it looks like Tony, not Ridley. Count me out. I'm thinking the American public will feel the same way after weekend 1.

While I still want to see "Body of Lies," it's based more on its perceived pedigree than any concrete understanding of what, specifically, it's about (based on the trailer).

That Jeff DOESN'T BOW AT THE FUCKING ALTAR of HEAT, THE KEEP, THIEF and MIAMI VICE just goes to show why he is once and forever McDOOOOOOOUCHE.

Christ, Jeff, I like you fine, but do you have AN OUNCE of testosterone or AWESOMENESS anywhere in your being? MANN THE FUCK UP, BOY.

NOW ON TO DAVID POLAND, who's about to get A DRESSING DOWN:

I HAVE NOT SEEN THIS BUT I KNOW WHOLEHEARTEDLY that it's going to FUCKING RULE THE FUCKING WORLD, but you and all these other NAYSAYING NANNIES better LEARN YOUR FACTS and RECOGNIZE that TONY and RIDLEY look nothing alike, and this trailer looked 1000000000000000000% like a RIDLEY and NOT LIKE A TONY.

Only RIDLEY uses that AQUAMARINE PURPLE-GREEN HAZE with the WHITE FLESH TONES. YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS IF YOU REVIEW FILMS. TONY DOESN'T DO THAT.

Also just from the TRAILER, those shots of LEO IN THE FRINGE-DASHED CAR LOOK EXACTLY like shots from BLACK HAWK DOWN. THOSE ARE RIDLEY SHOTS. NOT TONY SHOTS.

TONY IS GRAINIER AND GRAYER. RIDLEY is more chic and uses the purple interiors, as seen in EVERYTHING HE'S MADE since WHITE SQUALL; This is clearly color timed EXACTLY like the day-trader scenes of A GOOD YEAR, and for the BILLIONTH TIME, it perplexes me that PEOPLE WHO REVIEW MOVIES FOR A LIVING -- like, that's ALL YOU PEOPLE DO, YOU DON'T GO TO A GODDAMN DAY JOB LIKE ME -- can't notice basic tenets of CINEMATOGRAPHY AND COLOR TIMING.

Without even seeing this, I know that it's the sixth or seventh BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR, because RIDLEY IS THE KING OF FUCKING CINEMA, at least when his brother is out of town, and this will look, sound, feel and act like AWESOMENESS PERSONFIED, instead of like DOUCHE, which is what MOST MOVIES and MOST FILM CRITICS aspire to.

Lex, you seem to pay more attention to color timing than any cinematographer or color timer that I know (and I know a couple).

"do you have AN OUNCE of testosterone or AWESOMENESS anywhere in your being?"

Never measured.

I'd be the BEST CINEMATOGRAPHER IN THE FUCKING WORLD if I didn't have to AVID JOCKEY POLICE CHASE FOOTAGE FOR 11 HOURS A FUCKING DAY.

ARGH.

Hey Lex, I might be asking you for a job in a month.

lex luthor, i just wanted to point out that one need not be testosterone-turbocharged to be a big fan of mann...like me, for instance! i'm a chick and a fan of mann (ha, i sound like pacino in 'devil's advocate')

"This is clearly color timed EXACTLY like the day-trader scenes of A GOOD YEAR"

The problem with Body of Lies isn't with the cinematography, unfortunately, just like it wasn't the problem with A Good Year. The problems with this film start with the storyline, which is so full of holes you can see daylight streaming through it. The major plot turn takes place too long into the film, when it should happen no later than 20 minutes in. The payoff, when it comes, is, as David said, a huge no-orgasm disappointment.

From a political standpoint (and there's no getting around that angle, since it's a film centered around Middle Eastern terrorists and the Iraq War) the film can't make its mind up if it wants to be critical of US policies or simply shrug its shoulders and say, "Well, that's what a maverick has to do in these times, no one is innocent."

Further, there's some truly atrocious dialogue, particularly in what's supposed to be the most intense scene of the film. Laughably bad, cribbed straight out of every "good guy bravely confronts the big bad terrorist" scene ever written, and in that scene even poor DiCaprio seems to know how bad it is, because his heart doesn't seem in it.

The acting overall, given that we've got Crowe and DiCaprio here, is not as solid as it should be, although it's hard to say how much of that is because of the lame dialogue throughout much of the film. Even the conflict between Crowe and DiCaprio, which should drive the film, doesn't ever feel tense enough to keep things moving, because the character arcs are so weak that the conflict just doesn't feel believable, even given the need to suspend disbelief for a movie. Which I'm willing to do when the storyline merits it, but in this case it's not.

There are some good shots and editing in the film, some nice big explosions, some good tight shots in the midst of chaos that work well. But the film overall is just weak. Not the worst film I've seen all year, no, but certainly not as good as one would hope given the pedigrees attached to the film. Sorry, Lex, but it's just not a great film. Then again, I wasn't crazy about A Good Year either.

I'm not sure how anyone can be a "big, big fan" of William Monahan when all three of his scripts have been interesting but convoluted and deeply flawed.

Kim, I appreciate that in-depth write-up and while those DO sound like notable issues a proper critic ought to have... it doesn't change the fact THAT THIS MOVIE IS GOING TO OWN MY ASS and that's all I look for in a movie: OWNAGE.

The only thing "mediocre" in the trailers is that FAKE-AS-FUCK looking hair on Mark Strong. Christ, after 93 years of cinema, THEY CAN'T GET FUCKING WIGS RIGHT?

James Dean's "old man" look in GIANT was more convincing that those burns and that hairline.

I'm with Nick Rogers on this. I saw the trailer at EagleEye last weekend and didn't quite understand what it was even about. But, then again, I didn't understand the other trailers we saw either. It was all really confusing.

"The problems with this film start with the storyline,"

Yeah, but since when does story matter to Lex? As long as it's pretty, and some shit blows up, it OWNS.... apparently.

I've already pre-bought tickets for 11 showings this weekend -- three on Friday, four on Saturday, and four on Sunday.

FUCK YEAH.

THIS MOVIE IS GOING TO COMMAND YOU LIKE A GOD.

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: