Romeo + Juliet

Started by bonanzataz, May 02, 2003, 08:01:19 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4
User actions

©brad

#15
May 22, 2003, 02:54:55 PM
check it out. its good stuff. baz does do some wild shit in it visually, but its no where as wild and over-the-top as Moulin Rouge. I think it really works well. the film has so much energy and vibe, especially the first 20 minutes. i like the scene when leo and the bitch meet for the first time at the fish tank, with that woman singing that song, its cool.

USTopGun47

#16
May 22, 2003, 06:37:18 PM
Absolutely.  Guy Ritchie and especially Baz Luhrman are like little children that have just discovered a camera and sparkling objects and are out to have a field day.  It absolutely gives NO maturity to their works, just flash.  I too love the original Romeo and Juliet with Olivia Hussey from Australia.  Great stuff, as is Zeffirelli's Hamlet.  Mel Gibson is quite impressive in that adaptation.   :-D
I'm somebody now, Harry. Everybody likes me. Soon, millions of people will see me and they'll all like me. I'll tell them about you, and your father, how good he was to us. Remember? It's a reason to get up in the morning. It's a reason to lose weight, to fit in the red dress. It's a reason to smile. It makes tomorrow all right. What have I got Harry, hm? Why should I even make the bed, or wash the dishes? I do them, but why should I? I'm alone. Your father's gone, you're gone. I got no one to care for. What have I got, Harry? I'm lonely. I'm old.

brockly

#17
May 23, 2003, 05:09:07 AM
Quote from: USTopGun47I hate Baz Luhrman and his production of Romeo and Juliet.  Too much and too flashy.  Just because it's contemporary doesn't mean its that original.  How in depth is the sword idea really?  It's all cheap eye candy to me.   :evil:

i agree. hated it.

godardian

#18
May 23, 2003, 09:51:01 AM
Quote from: Brock Landers
Quote from: USTopGun47I hate Baz Luhrman and his production of Romeo and Juliet.  Too much and too flashy.  Just because it's contemporary doesn't mean its that original.  How in depth is the sword idea really?  It's all cheap eye candy to me.   :evil:

i agree 100% Baz Luhrman sux. Haven't seen Strickly Ballroom, but man did R+J SUCK!!!! I especially hated the fucking fragon queen scene. Everytime I hear that song now it sends a chill down my spine, as I think of the faggotiest (i know thats not a real word) movie ever made.

That has absolutely nothing to do with it, for me. The content. It's his pseudo-style. Pick any scene in the film, and you can see how he's ruined it because it never feels like anything more than that he's trying to sell you the clothes they're wearing.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Pastor Parsley

#19
May 23, 2003, 10:21:34 AM
Quote from: USTopGun47Mel Gibson is quite impressive in that adaptation.   :-D

are you serious?

SoNowThen

#20
May 23, 2003, 10:21:35 AM
Yeah, I have to agree. I had to turn MR off after 30 min. A shitty, overwrought, boring love story with great art direction, music, color, and fast editing is still a shitty overwrought boring love story.

But I'd like to see R & J all the same. Haven't got around yet.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

godardian

#21
May 23, 2003, 10:59:12 AM
Quote from: Pastor Parsley
Quote from: USTopGun47Mel Gibson is quite impressive in that adaptation.   :-D

are you serious?

I shudder at the thought of Mel Gibson, but I might be willing to hold my nose and give it a try... maybe...
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Sleuth

#22
May 23, 2003, 12:30:08 PM
Oh man, Mel Gibson as Hamlet is great, his best role ever.  I saw it in school and it really wowed me
I like to hug dogs

Pastor Parsley

#23
May 23, 2003, 03:38:09 PM
Quote from: tremoloslothOh man, Mel Gibson as Hamlet is great, his best role ever.  I saw it in school and it really wowed me

I saw it in highschool too.....it wowed me as well.........BUT I was in highschool.  Mel should be able to wow a highschool student.  Watch it again...his acting is laughable.  He is so overly dramatic it's corny.  Like I said, I like Mel in some roles.....a Shakespearean actor he is not.

USTopGun47

#24
May 23, 2003, 03:47:27 PM
I see Mel Gibson's role in Hamlet as very visual.  It's not so much his dialogue, hey conveys a lot through his actions... very pacifistic.  I would relate his role in Hamlet to Adrien Brody in The Pianist ...puppy faced? if you will.  But the tension he shows inside him is impressive.  I know a lot of people really hate Mel Gibson, but I enjoy this role.  However, if you're not a fan, you probably wouldn't enjoy it.
I'm somebody now, Harry. Everybody likes me. Soon, millions of people will see me and they'll all like me. I'll tell them about you, and your father, how good he was to us. Remember? It's a reason to get up in the morning. It's a reason to lose weight, to fit in the red dress. It's a reason to smile. It makes tomorrow all right. What have I got Harry, hm? Why should I even make the bed, or wash the dishes? I do them, but why should I? I'm alone. Your father's gone, you're gone. I got no one to care for. What have I got, Harry? I'm lonely. I'm old.

Finn

#25
January 24, 2004, 09:34:00 PM
I hadn't seen this movie in a long time until tonight. I think it's really brilliant. It's not up there with Moulin Rouge, but it's still a terrific movie. The cinematography and costumes are beautiful as they always are with Baz Luhrmann movies. I also love the way he uses the music, particularly the choice of using Radiohead on the end credits. What a coincidence that he used a song with the title, Exit Music (For A Film). But it's definetly a cookie-cutter movie in the sense that some will hate it and others will love it.
Typical US Mother: "Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words."

SHAFTR

#26
January 24, 2004, 09:44:43 PM
oddly enough I watched this tonight, I actually own it on dvd.   I want to point out that I really hate Baz.

Moulin Rouge is probably my most hated film, I tried many times liking it and I just cannot do it.  There are a few moments of brilliance and the rest just makes me sick and annoys the shit out of me.

Romeo+Juliet, I think is the opposite of Moulin Rouge.  There are moments that annoy the shit out of me (any non Romeo/Juliet scene) and there are other parts that I really dig (the romeo/juliet scenes).  I think both Claire & Leo pulled it off and when Baz has the fuckin' patience to let a shot linger for over 2 seconds, beauty can be achived.  Anytime the secondary characters are in the film and the flashy editing, speed up, overacted style kicks in...i hate him.  I watched the film in High School and really liked it, I bought it last year on DVD and viewings since have shown that I merely like aspects or moments of the film.
"Talking shit about a pretty sunset
Blanketing opinions that i'll probably regret soon"

MacGuffin

#27
January 24, 2004, 09:56:19 PM
Quote from: SydneyBut it's definetly a cookie-cutter movie in the sense that some will hate it and others will love it.

I don't understand what you mean by this statement. Baz's version is far from being a 'cookie-cutter movie'. In fact, his style and that he kept the Shakespearian dialogue, but set it in modern day is what sets this film apart from it being a recycled retelling.
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Jeremy Blackman

#28
January 24, 2004, 09:58:51 PM
Quote from: SHAFTRThere are moments that annoy the shit out of me (any non Romeo/Juliet scene) and there are other parts that I really dig (the romeo/juliet scenes).  I think both Claire & Leo pulled it off and when Baz has the fuckin' patience to let a shot linger for over 2 seconds, beauty can be achived.  Anytime the secondary characters are in the film and the flashy editing, speed up, overacted style kicks in...i hate him.
It's actually the exact opposite with me. I think the emotion in the Romeo & Juliet scenes fails pretty miserably. I love the movie for its flashy scenes and its ingenuity... and, I guess, its gimmicks.

People always talk about style over substance, but what if you're looking for the wrong kind of substance?

SHAFTR

#29
January 24, 2004, 10:00:22 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
Quote from: SHAFTRThere are moments that annoy the shit out of me (any non Romeo/Juliet scene) and there are other parts that I really dig (the romeo/juliet scenes).  I think both Claire & Leo pulled it off and when Baz has the fuckin' patience to let a shot linger for over 2 seconds, beauty can be achived.  Anytime the secondary characters are in the film and the flashy editing, speed up, overacted style kicks in...i hate him.
It's actually the exact opposite with me. I think the emotion in the Romeo & Juliet scenes fails pretty miserably. I love the movie for its flashy scenes and its ingenuity... and, I guess, its gimmicks.

People always talk about style over substance, but what if you're looking for the wrong kind of substance?

well, that is where we differ :wink:
"Talking shit about a pretty sunset
Blanketing opinions that i'll probably regret soon"
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4
User actions