|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Aug 2, 2013 13:59:48 GMT -5
Wasn't that Hatfield and McCoys special very watched and well reviewed? The Western will never die. Just when it seems like it's gone and done, something comes along and brings it back. Open Range ruled! Right? Is that that one? With Costner and Duvall? Sent from my SPH-D710 using proboards hatfields vs mccoys is EXCELLENT. highest possible recommendation. Open Range was mixed, its a duvall vehicle, and he is superb, but costner was directing AND acting in a support- he was very flat and wooden, sometimes awkward. worth watching though.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 2, 2013 14:06:12 GMT -5
Costners often flat and boring! Sometime it works and sometimes it doesn't. Hatfield's and McCoy's had a great overall cast and a strong universal story to play with.
Duvall also did the Broken Trail miniseries.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2013 14:43:20 GMT -5
Wasn't that Hatfield and McCoys special very watched and well reviewed? The Western will never die. Just when it seems like it's gone and done, something comes along and brings it back. Open Range ruled! Right? Is that that one? With Costner and Duvall? Sent from my SPH-D710 using proboards "Open Range" and "3:10 to Yuma" and "True Grit" were the best Westerns of the 2000s ... not that there were a hundred made during the decade or anything. But they're darn good cowboy movies. I love a good cowboy movie.
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Aug 2, 2013 14:49:47 GMT -5
I've heard great things about Open Range. I've seen the other two, and enjoy them.
There's been what, a dozen good Westerns since 1980?
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 2, 2013 15:25:03 GMT -5
On the big screen? A dozen really fantastic ones maybe. If that. 3:10 was another remake. The Glen Ford original was already a classic. There have been quite a few that were alright but not what I'd call excellent films.
I think the quality of the western as a genre may have peaked in the 60s but I guess that's debatable.
For one thing I think there are fewer mans man types around now compared to then. Many of the ones that are still around now are getting older. I don't look out there and see a heck of a lot of Lee Marvin's or Lee Van Cleefs or Gary Coopers. There aren't many Newmans or Ladds or Brynners. The kinds of actors closest to that that are around now and in their prime are almost all foreign actors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2013 16:12:23 GMT -5
I could see Bryan Cranston making a fantastic, gritty, gunfighter of a cowboy.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 2, 2013 16:17:36 GMT -5
I'd also like to see Bryan Cranston as the next Jim Gordon. I've been planning on watching the Batman Year One Animated film again just for his work in it.
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Aug 2, 2013 18:44:34 GMT -5
On the big screen? A dozen really fantastic ones maybe. If that. 3:10 was another remake. The Glen Ford original was already a classic. There have been quite a few that were alright but not what I'd call excellent films. I think the quality of the western as a genre may have peaked in the 60s but I guess that's debatable. For one thing I think there are fewer mans man types around now compared to then. Many of the ones that are still around now are getting older. I don't look out there and see a heck of a lot of Lee Marvin's or Lee Van Cleefs or Gary Coopers. There aren't many Newmans or Ladds or Brynners. The kinds of actors closest to that that are around now and in their prime are almost all foreign actors. yeah. the sex symbol now are twerps like the vampire in twatlight. no ones buying that as a cowbboy hero. I could see Bryan Cranston making a fantastic, gritty, gunfighter of a cowboy. oh yeah. he could do that with cred to spare. I've heard great things about Open Range. I've seen the other two, and enjoy them. There's been what, a dozen good Westerns since 1980? open range is good. duvall is perfect (as usual) but costner is weak. did you see "hatfields and mccoys" ?
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Aug 2, 2013 19:35:02 GMT -5
I recently saw Open Range for the first time and LOVED it.
I saw it because of Duvall, and he is perfect as usual, but you know what's funny? I actually loved Costner in the film as well, and I haven't always said that about Costner. In fact, part of the reason I softened up on his casting in MOS was because I had just seen Open Range.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 2, 2013 21:29:20 GMT -5
I think Costners blandness works for him in some roles. Especially in period films like Westerns. That's why I thought he was a good pick to play a simple salt of the earth man like Pa Kent. I didn't remember being to impressed with him in Wyatt Earp though. Maybe I need to give that a rewatch.
For some reason he works for me in Waterworld too. Maybe because the Mariner is supposed to be this odd stoic loner. He's not my favorite Robin Hood but he sure isn't the worst either.
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Aug 2, 2013 23:41:43 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm hit and cold on his films.
Liked him in:
Untouchables Dances With Wolves The Bodyguard Perfect World Open Range The Postman (believe it or not) Bull Durham The New Daughter (he was fine; movie sucked big time) MOS (his death was mishandled IMO)
Indifferent:
Revenge Wyatt Earp Waterworld (film itself was entertaining as I recall) Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (film itself was entertaining) JFK (film was good) No Way Out Field of Dreams (film was entertaining) 3000 Miles to Graceland (enjoyed the film)
Lately, though, I feel like I've finally warmed up to him after years of ragging on the guy.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 5, 2013 20:36:39 GMT -5
Costner in the beginning I think was as smart as Swarzennegar, Ford, and Cruise in picking his films.
Only later on, did I feel he was taking on more than he could handle (Postman/ Waterworld)--- and then saw his career kind of stumble.
Hasn't aged the worst, but not the best, either, sadly...
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 5, 2013 22:00:54 GMT -5
I think for a while he did to go for things that were beyond him in the action hero arena. He worked as Ness in Untouchables because it was DePalmas stylized world and he was playing a white hat family man kind of guy. Connery was the savvy street smart experienced mentor. They played well off each other. Costner was no Robert Stack but he fit what DePalma was doing.
I think Robin Hood Prince of Thieves wasnt quite his thing either but the whole movie was so entertaining that his miscasting wasnt as noticable and he did well enough. He had a top cast supporting him and helping carry the slack.
Some of the movies he's in actually elevate him instead of it being the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 5, 2013 22:28:10 GMT -5
That's definitely possible. I think the smart actor knows his 'niche' and chooses roles that play up to it... which is what I think Costner did initially. Love or hate Cruise, I give that guy credit for choosing roles that fit him best- for the most part. (If he didn't, I don't think he'd still be around.)
Costner is no DeNiro, he's no chameleon. But he has this particular set of gifts that he brings to the screen. Snyder may have made some mistakes in MOS, but casting Costner ended up being a smart move.
I just wish he would have had Costner take over as director. The more time passes, the more I realize what an amazing film "Dances with Wolves" is. (I thought it highly overrated when it first came out).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2013 3:36:31 GMT -5
Costner can do romantic-comedy sports movies well. I love "Tin Cup."
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 7, 2013 10:49:48 GMT -5
"Tin Cup" was amazing. I never thought I'd be into a movie about golf! (Though, on another note, I wished at the time they had kept the original casting of Costner/Dennis Quaid)
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 7, 2013 10:58:04 GMT -5
That's definitely possible. I think the smart actor knows his 'niche' and chooses roles that play up to it... which is what I think Costner did initially. Love or hate Cruise, I give that guy credit for choosing roles that fit him best- for the most part. (If he didn't, I don't think he'd still be around.) Costner is no DeNiro, he's no chameleon. But he has this particular set of gifts that he brings to the screen. Snyder may have made some mistakes in MOS, but casting Costner ended up being a smart move. I just wish he would have had Costner take over as director. The more time passes, the more I realize what an amazing film "Dances with Wolves" is. (I thought it highly overrated when it first came out). My issue with him was never that he wasn't a chameleon. He's just kind of flat as an actor. Somebody mentioned JFK and that's another one where they presented his Jim Garrison as the good hearted family man. I have no idea if the real Garrison was so noble but they were trying to make it something that would fit Stones fictional world and Costner. I think the movie could have been even better with a stronger lead anchoring it. Costners got his own particular appeal and sometimes it works. I also thought he was great in A Perfect World.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,769
|
Post by atp on Aug 7, 2013 16:41:46 GMT -5
In hindsight, would you have preferred to have MoS or SR2?
I kind of wish someone would raise the money and make SR2 with Routh. A kind of rival movie, like NSNA.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 7, 2013 16:49:55 GMT -5
The only way that would have happen is if another party had a big enough piece of the film rights to make a rival movie. Maybe if the Siegel heirs had gotten what they wanted in court. Rouths best bet to get back into the role ASAP in some form is animation. Of course if Arrow isn't part of WBs DC shared film universe it would be cool if the Arrow producers got Routh to do a cameo as Superman or Kent. Maybe he could lead the Arrow version of the Justice League. I'd rather they did that than cast yet another Superman.
As for the choice? I'd rather have seen a SR2. What we got with MOS was a bunch of past ideas mashed together. IF Singer had used Brainiac he would have been forced to bring something new to the cinematic Superman table. In hindsight they should have taken a risk. They might be farther ahead than they are now. Star Trek II corrected the issues with TMP and that meant going back and doing hard work instead of starting from scratch. But it worked. Plus Singers already shown he can make a superior superhero sequel so I wouldn't have counted him out yet. Lots of things led to MOS. Some of them were Singers fault on choices he made even after SR was released. Other things were beyond his control. Like Dark Knight making over a billion dollars. Id imagine WB looked at Nolan then back at Superman after he and Goyer made their pitch and had immediate dollar signs in their eyes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 3:21:42 GMT -5
I'd like to see SR2. Besides changing the Lois/Clark dynamic, what new ground did MoS break? Dropping the trunks? Minor detail. No stupid curl? Please. Yeah, I wanted a new take on Superman, but we got more of the same in a lot of ways. I'm hoping it was due to a case of origin-itis.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 8, 2013 12:27:13 GMT -5
I think they did break new ground- but in ways that were LESS interesting, overall, from a story point of view. It's far less of a fairy tale, it's more cynical and dark.
I give it credit for feeling like a new experience- some of the visual choices that Zack Snyder made I actually agree with- but character-wise, we now have a Superman that grows up more distrustful than naive- he bends more towards Wolverine than Christ in this version.
The Lois/Clark dynamic isn't just different (it's closer to Smallville's take on it, but with less joy), it's flat. Lois may have been a bit of a sitcom character in the comics of the past/Donner's version--- (carried over to Lois&Clakr and Smallville), but designing her as this slightly wacko but fun zealous reporter made her balance out Clark/Supes' rather quiet 'good guy' personality.
Like Kevin said, Clark/Supes doesn't quip. I'd go further and say Clark/Supes also goes out of his way to blend into the background, and, thus, maybe seem boring. Clark/Supes is not the all-star sports jock (something I think was a flat out dumb choice by the Smallville tv show), he's had to sit on the sidelines and keep a lot of who he is/was under wraps ever since he knew he was different, not calling too much attention to himself.
The cosmetic stuff (no trunks, no curl) turned out to be minor. I think Cavill works fine if we can't have Routh, but it's the character changes that irritated.
Now, if you had to go with the 'mankind isn't ready yet' route--- then, it MIGHT have felt stronger (or justifiable) if there was actually a personal journey that we could really see.
As far as characterization goes- It was also thin in STM, to be fair, but there was enough to suggest why he turned out the way he did. A few scenes did a great job of compression-
#1- Clark being humiliated in high school by Brad, Lana interested in Clark #2- Joy of racing the train, exploring his powers and abilities on his own #3- Opening up to his dad about his troubles, and a hint of what that whole relationship has been like, over a lifetime #4- 'All those Powers and I couldn't even save him' scene #5- Leaving home
There's pain and angst, but there's also warmth to these scenes as well, making Clark very relatable
Compared to MOS:
#1- Clark hearing too much at once #2- Clark saving the bus/Jonathan saying maybe he should have let them die #3- Clark being bullied at school #4- Clark saying, 'you're not my father'/ #5- Jonathan Kent being pulled away by the tornado.
With STM- you empathized with Clark's character--- and really saw how Jonathan and Martha were at the core of Clark's goodness and insistence that he was here to find out how he could help contribute/ be part of the world.
With MOS- Clark's beaten up far worse all of his life worse than the physical beating he got in SR!
The parents seem overprotective, but Smallville seems like such a heckhole that he might as well have landed in a jungle! The scene with Clark hearing too much at once and being comforted by his mom wasn't bad, but the tone that one gets overall from watching Clark's life feels more like: 'why SHOULD he help humanity?' rather than seeing factors that you can see point Clark in that direction in STM.
There's a hint of a counterbalance with Pete Ross offering his hand (presumably a start of a friendship), but, sadly, the opportunity to use this element of the story isn't played up at all. If it had, perhaps we would also have gotten to see how Clark saw the good aspects of humanity, as well.... but- if you look at the giant body of Goyer's work, those kinds of scenes are something that's constantly lacking in his scripts.
SR had a lot of heart, but was a downer for a segment of fans.
MOS, the more I think on it, really does fall in line with Goyer's other works.... and Snyder's as well. Some great ideas, but the weaknesses of both Goyer and Snyder made things worse rather than better.
It's too bad. I really do put this in line with SIV--- I think there was promise, and I will rewatch bits I like, but it's not a character I really recognize anymore. Maybe MOS 2/Batman 8 will resolve a lot of it.... maybe an extended fixes the things I have issues with , just have to wait until these come out....
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Aug 8, 2013 13:28:21 GMT -5
If SR2 was more of the same of SR then most of us would wish for an all-out action MOS instead
But who knows how SR2 would have panned out? Not even Singer knows.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 8, 2013 13:43:44 GMT -5
I'd be suprised if it would have been. The comparisons that Singer made about ST:TMP and SR seem on the money.... When ST:TMP came out, it really was a transition over decades--- laying down the groundwork was important, but he just should have delivered more on the action in SR. I go by his track record. I'm not deeply in love with all of his films, but he's never had an out and out a 'bad' film. Valkyrie I thought moved VERY slow, but it's still an interesting yarn based on what they were trying to tell. Even "Jack the Giant Slayer" was ok--- (the split between him wanting to do a dark 'r' film and the studio wanting to do a family friendly film really stick out). It's not that a movie can't out and out surprise you despite a filmmaker's past history (I was still nervous going into SR, wondering if it would work despite faith in Singer--- I also have that worry with X-men: Days of Future Past with all the anticipation).... but one can only go by past work to guess the 'probablilities' of how a sequel might have turned out. I had enough faith based on SR and Singer- but I know SR ruined a lot of faith for fans for a sequel, too...
|
|
Keith
New Member
Posts: 3,238
|
Post by Keith on Aug 8, 2013 13:52:43 GMT -5
Singer said in a recent interview while talking about X-Men DOFP, that if he would have done SR2, that it would have been along the lines of MOS with a major alien threat. He said it was a major departure from the Donner-verse but he said Cavill was charming.
I still like SR for what it was.. a closing chapter for the Reeve era Superman. Do I like it as much as I did when it came out? No... It's still an okay movie, there are a lot of good things in it, but there's also a lot of bad. The bad in this movie outweigh the bad in MOS. Bosworth was the worst choice for Lois, I really don't like Spacey as Lex anymore. Amazing that he was the fan pick for Luthor and it was overacted and hammy. The Land scheme and the obviously bad 3D generated flying Superman (at least in MOS it never seemed that painfully obvious that it was CGI like it was in SR) and I really don't like the costume anymore, I liked it a lot at first but now.. it doesn't work. I've seen better fan made Superman cosplay costumes...
I liked the kid, Routh (I wish he would have had a little more direction and more material to work with.. I think he would have been even better. He was just a little TOO awkward at times.) There were some great Superfeats and the Airplane rescue was pretty awesome. The moment with his son sleeping at the end was great. The Lois & Superman flight.
I'm glad we have moved on.. I loved MOS. Yeah there's a few things I would have changed, but we are never going to get a movie where everything is perfect, especially when it comes to Superman.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 8, 2013 14:00:46 GMT -5
Hilarious that MOS have us yet ANOTHER plan to turn Earth into a new Krypton.
Like someone on youtube said movies are derivative but MOS may have been the most derivative big budget movie of the summer. Like WB execs sat down with Goyer and Snyder and looked at every big sci fi comic book or fantasy blockbuster of the last half decade and told them to cherry pick the best parts.
For me the bad in MOS is about equal to the bad in SR. Some of the bad stuff in each is different while some of it is exactly the same. SR didn't feel like it was copying as many other big blockbusters though. With MOS its not only blatant but its spread across the film
|
|