Printable View
I watched Gone last night, with Amanda Seyfried. I first downloaded to watch her acting, and more :P but the least you see is Amanda as a woman (maybe like in that movie with Megan Fox).
It's actually a good actress in my opinion, that surprised me, although in "In Time" she played a decent role.
The movie has suspense and a little drama, nothing much. It isn't a must-see movie, but for the length (1h30m) it's a good option.
Gone is total shite,true story. Also the user reviews on IMDB have lost all legitimacy.Actual critics on RT rated it 11% positive.
Listen I like Amanda Seyfried enough to have sat though almost the entirety of Dear John and a bit of Letters to Juliet but any similarity to believable acting that she does in Gone is purely coincidental.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Quote:
Storyline
Set during the grand, sweeping Napoleonic age, an officer in the French army insults another officer and sets off a life-long enmity. The two officers, D'Hubert and Feraud, cross swords time and time again in an attempt to achieve justice and preserve their honor.
:dave:
Tell the truth it was the cross swords part that drew you in wasn't it?
Maybe but the balls didn't touch so it's not like it was gay or anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787
===
I kept thinking that Feraud is a perfect metaphor for Napoleon's military life. Ever advancing, never flinching from confrontation yet stubborn, cruel and oft erring in judgment. Keitel even looks like Napoleon. I don't know if it was intentional by the writers and was something Scott strived for, but if it was then I struggled for a while to fit an historical figure to D'Hubert. Wellington didn't fit and neither was he representative of the cowardly French monarchy.
Spoiler: ShowI decided then that I could make it fit if D'Hubert represented all of Napoleon's adversaries at the time. The French were occasionally bested, very infrequently humiliated but usually victorious until finally routed and their leader exiled. The final scene really is Feraud's Waterloo.
Spoiler above.
For a directorial first attempt, The Duellists is a tour de force, sorry for the lack of machine guns and helicopters meg, maybe when Michael Bay does the remake? It is that for the reasons manker lays out, it is a complex interplay, the battle between the two men is a metaphor for the times. Ridley Scott's next directorial foray was of course Alien which was at the time an incredible success (despite the idiotic and incessant nagging by the brandywine production team) showing both great range and flexibility and cementing his future career as one of the truly great directors.
Saw the movie( not literally Saw:The Movie)now read the book.
http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/2481/
Though I will be astounded if anyone has the patience.
Btw in similar vein I watched Battleship no I didn't and then I played the game didn't actually do that either and was amazed how complex the game was in comparison to the film. :O
The movie had a better soundtrack though.
I watched Courage Under Fire again and would probably give my thoughts on it if I for a minute thought anyone cared.It is also from the murky,mystical before time when Lou Diamond Phillips was still a bigger star than Matt Damon.
Not only do I have the patience, I converted it to a .mobi and stuck it on my kindle to read in bed later.
You should get one of those, luddite.
I'm hoping it will provide some character insights which were lacking in the film. Particularly everyone in it.
Nailed itQuote:
Originally Posted by megabyteme
Do it like Brett Blewitt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idol
===
I don't get the :dave: thing.
Truth posted above.