Does any one recommend this? thinking about blind buying it? thoughts?...
blind buying is wack (http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=386&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60)
When I find it, I'm gonna pick it up based soley on Storaro's involvement. Oh, and I heard there's some amazing early steadicam work in it.
So, uh, if someone has seen it and it really sucks, please let us know before money is wasted...
well it wasn't really any good with the critics or anything but i'd by if for nothing else then just for the brilliant score by tom waits.
I saw it here at The Varsity (http://www.landmarktheatres.com/market/Seattle/VarsityTheatre.htm) a few weeks ago. It is beautiful. It has almost no story. And the more attention you pay to what "story" there is, the worse it will seem. In most other movies, the acting would be bad, but this is '50s-musical acting transplanted to the '80s; it merely seems incongruous and anachronistic, not necessarily bad. The stunning artificiality of the entire thing (all built on the Zoetrope studios with no expense spared, hence its reputation as the Movie That Broke Copolla), the lighting, and the camerawork alone are enough to make it of real interest for film buffs (and film buffs alone, probably).
kubrick didn't like it. michael herr did.
that's all i know.
Quote from: Pkubrick didn't like it. michael herr did.
that's all i know.
Kael hated it too, for the only things about it Kubrick might have appreciated: "This movie isn't from the heart, or from the head, either; it's from the lab," "This movie feels like something directed from a trailer," etc. She criticizes it for the same things she criticized Kubrick's movies for: Its (too?) precise beauty and proficiency, though it is quite a bit "warmer" than Kubrick's (that's not a complaint, just an observation; I see no warm/cold hierarchy in cinematic emotion, as long as you pull off whatever it is you're doing).
Did Murch have any involvement with this movie?
Quote from: SoNowThenDid Murch have any involvement with this movie?
IMDB lists 4 editors, but no Murch.
Apparently, Copolla used then cutting-edge video editing techniques, the specifics of which I have no idea...
As a tangent, I see that Allen Garfield is in this, credited as Allen Goorwitz (like he was in The Stuntman). Any explanation for this weirdo name change???
Awhile back, October/November-ish of last year, I read David Breskin's Inner Views (thanks to a recommendation from someone here, I think ©brad). The Coppola section was so incredibly insightful, especially when it came to this movie, which I've wanted to see since I read about it. It seems like such an incredibly personal movie that, along with Tucker, was the misstep that really screwed him over. Just thought I'd say that, because if you're looking for more on Coppola or this film, you could do worse than that book. Besides, it has stuff on a lot of other great filmmakers as well.
I got this in the mail today from Netflix, popped it in, just got done watching it. The film plays like some sort of opera or musical, and yeah, it has little story. The cinematography, editing, and mise-en-scene are all simply breathtaking, and that alone makes it worth seeing. Some of the things done with transitions are just perfectly executed. But Coppola ruins it all with a questionable script with questionable decisions made towards the end. I don't know if I'm alone here, but when Frannie got on the plane, that felt right, and having her show up back at the house just didn't sit well at all. The guy (forget his name) was a prick, and Raymond was a much better person. I did get a laugh out of the whole motel scene, though the electrocution bit with the guy's hair standing on end was a bit over-the-top. Teri Garr and Lisa Kudrow look so much alike, it's no wonder Teri played Phoebe's mom on Friends. *** (7/10) 'cause of the crap ending, but still worth a look.
BTW, my version was full screen, and I don't see any option to change it to wide. Was it full screen to start with, or was I given a "wrong version?"
It's an interesting film. Definitely more of an experiment than a finished work -- as evidenced by the admission that until the DVD there never really was a definitive cut. But One From the Heart's influences can be seen in films like Punch Drunk Love (stylized musical tone over a dark reality, minor use of plot) and even Eyes Wide Shut (roaming Stedicam following the mundane nature of sexual relations, symbolic use of color).
What the film does represent, above all, whether successful as a whole or not, is that Francis Ford Coppola's command of the medium is so far superior to just about everybody else out there. Each of his films looks, feels, moves differently than the others. You wouldn't watch one of his films blindly and know it was by him. Unlike say, Martin Scorsese (he could never have come up with such a creative film).
The thing that's most haunting about the film, and what gives it a certain importance, is what it was about and when it was made. It was the early '80s and Coppola was depicting what our society was becoming: a sealed-off fantasy world populated by normal flawed people. A world where dreams are everywhere, but the courage to follow through is scarse. It's a pretty dead-on commentary of the times.
I liked this flick. Mostly the color and embraced fakeness of it all.
Oh, and, Scorsese did come up with this movie already, it's called New York, New York. It just had a down ending.
New York, New York was hardly on this level. It was pretty unwatchable.