BS: Ten films that got it wrong

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 02:15 PM

Its not nitpicking. He does not act. I don't know whether or not he can act because he does not even try.

I know it worked for John Wayne. But Costner is no John Wayne.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 02:29 PM

I'd halfway agree with you on that, Jack, Costner does tend to play "himself" most of the time...but Kevin Costner has done some great movies in his time. I would also say that he did in fact act quite well in some of them. He certainly acted well in JFK, for instance, as far as I'm concerned. He certainly came across well in the one about Elliot Ness.

He hit a point, though, where he became enormously and universally popular...and that's really dangerous for anyone in show biz....because what happens quite soon after that is that a reaction sets in against it, and people can't wait to see their old hero fall from the dizzying heights.

The negative reaction began to set in sometime after "Dances With Wolves", around about the time the Robin Hood film came out...and admittedly, Kevin Costner was miscast as Robin Hood. So that was when he began to appear vulnerable.

And what happened after that? An absolute feeding frenzy of Costner criticism became the soup de jour of the media. Let's all get together and screw Kevin Costner, said the critics and the public. After all, WE were the people who just couldn't get enough of him. WE were the people who put him on the cover of "People" magazine as "sexiest man in the world" only a year or two ago.

Nothing like that can last. People get embarrassed over their own adulation of someone. They decide their hero is not God after all, and they're out to get him from then on. It's like what happened to Springsteen after 1985. Remember? By 1987 you couldn't sell a Bruce Springsteen album in a record store to anyone for 5 cents! The poor guy had become toooooo popular...he got overexposed...and then the reaction set in.

People don't see how they do it. They build up their heroes large...way too large...then they turn on them like dogs when they see them showing a sign of weakness.

It's mean. It's petty. It's nasty. I don't like it.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 02:57 PM

These things go in cycles. You'd have sworn a year ago that Mel Gibson was dead meat, but I see he has a film in production and another slated for later in the year.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 03:21 PM

Mel Gibson made a very loyal following with the "Christ" movie. He didn't lose any of it with his drunken comments.

Little Hawk.

I made up my mind about Costner from watching is movies. Wyatt Earp may have been realistic in all other respects, But he should not have been portrayed with the attitude and demeanor of a California liberal.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:09 PM

Oh, so? So now you're dissing California liberals are you, Jack? Humph! Next you'll be making demeaning remarks about chimpanzees and calling them "monkeys" and "poop throwers". Yeah, yeah, I know how it works... ;-)

My opinion of Costner has also been formed by watching his movies, naturally. I thought some of them were great...and I thought some of them were okay...and I thought some of them were just downright mediocre or even close to being a complete disaster (like The Postman).

But it all depends which ones.

My general impression is that he was mostly far more effective in his movie parts when he was younger. Some actors and actresses are like that. They have something in their youth that gets lost after awhile. You can say that about some singers too, while others age like fine wine.

But I think people have been unnecessarily cruel to Kevin Costner since not too long after the Robin Hood film came out. I don't think they are disposed to give a fair chance to anything the man does now, simply because it's become cool and fashionable not to. He unwittingly assisted in that process by trying to make a series of futuristic, overblown epics that didn't come off well (Waterworld, The Postman...). In the case of the Wywatt Earp film I think he did a fine biography of the man's life, though. It's the only film I know of that seriously attempted to depict Earp's whole life, rather than just building a drama around the brief events in Tombstone and the gunfight at the OK Corral (an event that took less than half a minute in real life).

A western he did that I was not very impressed with was "Open Range".

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 12:46 AM

I watched a few minutes of Kurt Russell as Wyatt Earp in Tomabstone on a cable channel this evening. Looked interesting. The couple of minutes I watched saw him rout Billy Bob Thornton as a crooked card dealer. Saw Bill Paxton in it also. He's an interesting actor.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Grab
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 06:31 AM

Costner's not always been bad. "If you build it they will come" ring any bells? And Untouchables was good too, although that was very much an ensemble piece.

But he certainly did have a run of bad films - seems like he chose stuff which sounded "big-budget box-office" but which in fact were all badly-written dross. A great actor could maybe have carried them, but Costner wasn't good enough for that.

Having said that, as a yachtie I loved Waterworld. That was *the* most beautiful boat!

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: irishenglish
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 10:51 AM

Costner has been in some clunkers for sure, but the one that I really enjoyed him in was Thirteen Days-I loved that movie!

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: RangerSteve
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 02:53 PM

I guess I'll come to the defense of "WaterWorld", too. There are only a few movies I've seen, where every character, major or minor was interesting, and worthy of his own movie. "The Fifth Element" and "The Outlaw Josie Wales" are two others. And it was always nice to look at. And the story wasn't bad. I'm still not sure why so few people liked it, but it's probably true, Costner got famous and needed to be shot down.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 03:06 PM

That's it exactly. The critics simply decided it was time to trash Kevin Costner, because he had become too famous and popular, and they went after him with a vengeance...and people in general simply jumped on the bandwagon.

Waterworld had a number of good points. It was a pretty decent action and sci-fi film, and it did not deserve the amount of abuse it got from the critics.

After that the pattern was established. If Kevin Costner did any new movie, specially a big movie...everbody was just waiting to pan it unmercifully, their mouths watering at the prospect.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 04:00 PM

The most glaring problem with Water World was that it did not have a protagonist that the audience could identify with. Same with The Postman and to a lesser degree the same with Wyatt Earp. Costner is like a cool California robot on the screen reading the lines and mailing it in.

People who don't like Costner as an actor dislike him because he does not act.

>>The critics simply decided it was time to trash Kevin Costner, <<<

because everything he does is the same character and Kevin Costner, not acting makes a great crazy Iowa part time farmer and a pretty decent washed up catcher, but is not so good as a post-apocalyptic hero or an English legend or a Western Icon.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 04:09 PM

Here is YouTube program (Charlie Rose) with an interesting take on acting. It't the entire show, but watch the first 4 or 5 minutes.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 05:26 AM

A point that seems to have been missed from the discussion about 'Waterworld': In a post-apocalyptic world, where did the baddies get the petrol for the jet-skis?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 05:33 PM

They appeared to be getting it off the huge oil tanker that was serving as their home base. I don't know if that would be possible without a small onboard refinery operation...beats me...I don't know enough about that sort of thing....but that's obviously where they were getting the fuel from.

If what you're saying, Jack, is that Kevin Costner suits some roles far better than he suits others...I would have to agree. ;-) Even John Wayne genuinely suited some of the roles he played, despite not acting. Now take Clint Eastwood. Does he act? Or does he just play Clint Eastwood? Somehow it works in his case. Perhaps Clint is, in himself, interesting enough or intense enough that he can't help but be interesting to watch. That's how he strikes me. He's never boring.

Does Charles Bronson act? If he does, I don't know if I've ever noticed it...he seems about as impassive as an actor can possibly get. In Bronson's case, it doesn't work for me. I get absolutely bored watching him.

The only movie I ever saw him in where I liked the part he played was "The Magnificent Seven".

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Skivee
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 05:38 PM

where did the baddies get the petrol for the jet-skis?
Shimrod, my friend. Do you remember that big-=ass tanker "The Exxon Valdez" that was their base of operations? They had lots of oil. Maybe your point was that oil isn't petrol, in which case I agree with you. I guess we were to assume a method of cracking the crude.
Another reason that the movie was "pre-trashed" was that the budget doubled from about $60million to over $120 million. This was because most of the sets were destroyed in a storm off Kuwai.
I remember that the film was getting bad press for the budget before completion, as if Kostner was somehow responsible for the weather.
That being said, it's not one of his better films...essentially "The Road Warrior" on water. brain candy.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 05:45 PM

Yes, that's exactly what it was..."The Road Warrior" on water. The fact that they had to film it all on water made the filming very difficult and expensive, so the film went WAY over budget, and that got it a lot of bad press.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 05:51 PM

Bronson did act in Magnificent Seven he was brilliant and believable as a bad ass whose heart was touched by those kids to the degree that he willingly died for them. I am guessing that in his life at the time, Bronson really loved kids and he let that part of his personality shine through his usually cold movie exterior.

Eastwood has acted in Unforgiven, Line of Fire and Million Dollar Baby. When his characters have and arc and decisions to make in a movie. He portrays the feelings and the thought process.

Costner is OK when the rule suits who he is, But after Field of Dreams he tended to choose roles based on an ego which is much larger than his range.

When an actor gets hot he gets lots of roles and then he gets to show how good he is.

I am glad that Jim Cary got "Spotless mind" that Russell Crowe got A Beautiful Mind and that Matt Damon got a lot of the roles he got.
Matt's buddy Ben, has shown less range but is still good in some roles.

Actors hate being typecast, but some, especially Costner deserve to be. Governor Arnold is the classic example of a movie star who doesn't act. But he has been smart enough only to take roles that suit the personality he projects.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 05:57 PM

Schwarzennegger has indeed been very astute in that respect, just as you say, Jack. I also agree with you about Eastwood...the man can definitely act. He just sort of gave the impression in a kind of superficial way that he couldn't act for a certain period of time there, just because of the specific roles he was in...but he can. No question about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 06:06 PM

I usually get stunned looks when i say this out loud, but I think that Al Pacino gets a lot of roles that he is not capable of portraying. What he does he does well. It just doesn't apply to all roles.

Now Kevin Spacey can act. But he should never have played Bobby Darin.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 07:18 PM

Kevin Spacey is a real interesting character. He likes to take risks. I'm waiting to see how this Bridge project of his comes out (Shakespeare, half the company from the U.S., half from the U.K., with performances in London and Brooklyn and one other international locale each year).

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 08:25 PM

Maybe Bobby Darin shouldn't have played Bobby Darin. :)
Just a thought.

I see we have basically drifted from criticizing movies to criticizing actors, which I don't have a problem with--some people even get paid for doing that.

The distortion of history in "Untouchables" --viz., the "where's Nitti?" "He's in the car" thing is absolutely overwhelming to me.

"Wyatt Earp" is, as far as I know, more historically accurate than "Tombstone," but Kilmer is the only "Doc" who so far has been allowed to say the line actually attributed to D.H. when the Earps told him he didn't have to go to the Corral, i.e., "That's a helluva thing to say to me."

CC

PS. I have absolutely no idea why or if ANY of this is significant! :)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Skivee
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 10:00 PM

Puchino and DeNiro both do a superb job in HEAT. It's a GREAT heist film with solid story, cast, cinematography. All the charaters have depth and the actors play off each other in a really goosebumpy sorta way. Oh, and lotsa stuff blows up.
Errr, maybe I should start a BS thread about "Ten Films That Got It Right"

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 10:59 PM

I agree with you about Al Pacino, Jack. He's perfect for some roles...not so good for others.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Barry Finn
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 02:48 AM

Sean Connery has never disappointed me, maybe his roles weren't great but he was great for his roles.

I just saw the Other Bollen Girl. Liked it alot, the acting was good, the secenery great, the costumes good, the weapons even had me. Course I'm a sucker for this type of shit too.
What I don't like is forgettin the true history & having to go back & check the facts so I don't remain confused. It's sometimes just worth the effort to go see a flick if I feel compeled to to get it right later. I know some of it was off, like when do they play Trad Irish music at an English wedding & since when was Westin Wind a Trad-getry song & not Burns, timing there was off too. Poor Jane Seymore doesn't see her end coming at all, oh I better just read the real history all over again.

The worst of the lot are the war flicks. Is it because when a film is being made & it gets help from the military & the price one pays is that the military has to ok it if they're donating, that they can't get anything right. The war flicks IMHO are the worst. It's so bad that I can't even stomack the preview or the titles. If they filmed the truth I guess then none of the age group they're showing to (the same age as those that'd sign up) probably would never sign. Maybe if they'd film more of the truth, the rest of us would make enough of a cultural shift that war would be to grotesgue to start but then that would put an end to war films, holywood wouldn't like that

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 05:28 AM

i From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie - PM
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 12:44 PM

Sorry, but the "it's just entertainment" argument doesn't work for me. Regardless of WHY a film is made the way it is, people who see it will have their perception of reality shaped by it


For me, that is one of the more interesting threads in this thread ! !

Several people have made a point like that.

CC's view doesn't, in turn, work for me.

How you see a film 9or anything) depends on several elements: your previous knowledge, education, agenda, relationship to (in this case) films and film-making, your idea of authority re facts and history.

If an audience's perception of reality is shaped by films, that's the audiences's lookout.

Part of the answer is education. If audiences, aka the general public, were better educated, they's have a better idea of what films and film-making were about, how the sociology of knowledge works, how the mass media work, even, heavens, how the society they live in works.

And they would be proactive rather than reactive in relation films (if not the whole of their life. because they would have been even-handedly critical (as distinct from against-everything critical).

Hollywood has no particular reason to be really interested in historical accuracy at all times. Nor does the audience. They have turned up basically because they want to be entertained. So why the hell should the audience think what they've seen is historically true.

As the car sticker had it, "If you think education is expensive, have you tried ignorance."

Harumfph


Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 11:28 AM

Ivor, how very postmodern of you!

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: GUEST,jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 12:19 PM

Ivor my problem with CC in most of his roles or for that matter, Pacino in a lot of his, is in the allocation of finite resources that is movie making and movie watching, it is wasteful. There are fewer films being made. There are a finite number of good scripts, good characters, good directors. To see one of those movies diminished with acting that does not properly portray the character or in Pacino's case that it is so over the top and distinctive that even a suave sophisticated, rich lawyer come off like that pathetic little man, 35 years ago, holding a bank full of people hostage to buy a sex change for his boyfriend.

I want to be entertained. I don't want to indulge an ego which is unaware of its ability. I want the film makers to put someone in a role that brings something to that role.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 04:28 PM

SRS, I think i say 'thank you' except I dunno what you mean. Can you help please?


: GUEST,jack the Sailor - PM
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 12:19 PM

Ivor my problem with CC in most of his roles or for that matter, Pacino in a lot of his, is in the allocation of finite resources that is movie making and movie watching, it is wasteful.

Reminds me of something.

Oh yeh. Capitalism.


Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 05:36 PM

"Shimrod, my friend. Do you remember that big-=ass tanker "The Exxon Valdez" that was their base of operations?"

Oh yes! Shit! I'd forgotten all about that ... silly me ... Just shows how much attention I was paying, doesn't it?

STILL (no pun intended), I wonder how easy it would be to get petrol from oil while floating about in the sea (he said defiantly in the face of overwhelming humiliation).



I'll get me coat ...

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 05:45 PM

Indeed it is, but is is bad capitalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 01:03 AM

Ivor,

How you see a film (or anything) depends on several elements: your previous knowledge, education, agenda, relationship to (in this case) films and film-making, your idea of authority re facts and history.

These are pretty basic arrows in the postmodernist's quiver. Also called post structuralism. Understanding that through experience, language, semiotics (the "sign" and "signifier" you may have seen reference to at some time or other), cultural activities, etc, everyone has a somewhat different understanding of the meaning of a work, whether on the printed page or on the screen.

If an audience's perception of reality is shaped by films, that's the audiences's lookout.

What is reality? Whose reality? Is the narrator reliable or unreliable? It is the "audience's lookout," as you say. Not only understanding the story, but understanding the film, if I can make a distinction.

It was an interesting remark.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Grab
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 06:31 PM

God, don't tell me some people liked Waterworld for the acting and characters?! Hell, when I said I loved it, I spent the entire movie watching the boat. It was a damn sight more interesting and better looking than anything else on screen. I do remember dozing off a few times - guess that must have been when they started acting.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 10:15 PM

"These are pretty basic arrows in the postmodernist's quiver."

Whoof! Jeezus Liberty, Stilly, now there's a sentence that would reduce your typical pretentious afternoon Latte clatch of post-Yuppies at Starbucks into stunned silence, knowing that they had been outmaneuvered verbally and metaphorically and left basically in the dust, as it were, for the rest of the day. Holy sophistry, Batman! Could William F. Buckley Jr. even have matched that? I wonder.

What I want to know is, how come Ebert's getting paid so much to write those brilliant movie reviews when it oughta be you???

Zowie. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 11:04 PM

I let the answer fit the context, LH. :) If I was going to put on my postmodernist hat, I might as well pull out the mask as well.

I've been writing book and film reviews for years. They're scattered all over the Internet.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 01:16 AM

Little Hawk,

The last day of March, and this evening my son and I watched Equus. I hadn't seen it since when it first came out--I knew it was powerful, but it hit me all over again. I'll borrow from Eliot

April is the cruelest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.

I figure this 16-year-old can understand it all, and I might as well contribute what I can to his liberal education. He asked if we can get A Clockwork Orange after reading a review of a film that opened a couple of weeks ago. I don't remember which it was now, I think the new film is a pale imitation. I'll pick Clockwork up at the library or get it through NetFlix. I'm glad he wants to do his own comparing, not only taking the word of the reviewer, or perhaps, taking the reviewer's meaning and looking back to the original.

April, and a young man's fancy turns to mindbending and psychoanalysis dramas. . . I'm quite impressed that young Daniel Radcliff (Harry Potter) took on this role on stage. He clearly wants to be a serious actor after all of the Wizardry is over.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 05:53 PM

But my dear autolycus, if people were educated, they would not buy faulty products, so we wouldn't need the Fair Trade Commission. If they were educated, they would not fall for snake oil salesmen, so we would not need the Pure Food and Drug Administration. If they were educated, they would not fall for various cons, and would not need the police. If they were educated, hey, the world would just be hunky dory, or however you spell that.

I don't live in the ideal world. I live in the real world, where young men see an anti-war piece like Apocalypse Now and enlist the following day because they saw a lot of things blown up in that movie and wanted to have fun blowing up more things. So much for the ability of audiences to always draw correct conclusions from "entertainment."

On another tack, I would maintain that several major wars have been waged because the perpetrators were force-fed a distorted view of history. Admittedly it's a long way from there to caring whether every historical detail in a given movie is accurate or not, but that's a continuum, and I would just as soon stop the distortion wherever it occurs, rather than trying to determine an aribtrary point at which it's OK to get it wrong in the name of entertainment.

Gladitorial games were also "entertainment," after all.

At least I don't have to come up with a reply to Jack the Sailor, who has a problem with "CC." I thought (briefly), "Ooops, someone has a problem with me. Oh, dear! How shall I make amends? How shall I correct my wicked, puerile, Philistine ways?" Then I realized--shrewd deducer of deductions that I am--that he meant Kevin Costner. I did have to look at a reference to see if it's Costner or Kostner, so I can't laugh at that confusion. But Cevin Costner? Now THAT is just pure entertainment.

KK

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 06:05 PM

Stilly - Cool! I suspected you might be doing something along those lines in the field of writing. I'm beginning to think we have someone here who can even outdo Amos when it comes to that sort of thing. We should arrange to have a "write-off" between you two and see who can reduce whom to gobsmacked speechlessness first...or better yet, get you to pair up and do movie and book reviews together the way Siskel and Ebert used to.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 06:10 PM

I'll admit it Charlie, I was thinking with my ears. I have no valid excuse. But if I were a member of Bush's Cabinet I would blame it on Bill Clinton.
But, and this is a big but!
If I were Kevin Costner, I might blame it on the script.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 12:20 AM

Most of us can see from the way Amos rattles off his epic little pomes that anyone walking into a competition with him has their work cut out for them. He flits along the left-hand side of the page while I pile it higher and deeper from margin to margin. We might be apples and oranges.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Ten films that got it wrong
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 10:27 AM

Or bagels and croissants.