Anna Paquin nude scene in Almost Famous?
du...@my-deja.com
know she is super sexy in it. Damn, she is gorgeous!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ruth
> I heard that Paquin does a quick nude scene in this movie. Does she? I
> know she is super sexy in it. Damn, she is gorgeous!
>
>
Anna Paquin's role in this film is so small...I was suprised that an
actress of Pacquins stature ( and probably salary recquirements ) was used
in what is almost an extra's role. I don't remember much nudity......a
little here and there....nothing spectacular...
Anyone know if a lot of Pacquins role ended up on the cutting room floor?
Ruth, who had a roll end up on the kitchen floor last night . The dog ate it.
--
"I tried reality once, I found it too confining" Lily Tomlin
Kalak
shot.
<du...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8qnbah$444$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I heard that Paquin does a quick nude scene in this movie. Does she? I
> know she is super sexy in it. Damn, she is gorgeous!
>
>
John Harkness
>In article <8qnbah$444$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, du...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> I heard that Paquin does a quick nude scene in this movie. Does she? I
>> know she is super sexy in it. Damn, she is gorgeous!
>>
>>
>
>Anna Paquin's role in this film is so small...I was suprised that an
>actress of Pacquins stature ( and probably salary recquirements ) was used
>in what is almost an extra's role. I don't remember much nudity......a
>little here and there....nothing spectacular...
>
>Anyone know if a lot of Pacquins role ended up on the cutting room floor?
>
According to Crowe, there's about 45 minutes of material that wasn't
in the movie that he's putting on the DVD.
John Harkness
Ruth
Harkness) wrote:
>
> According to Crowe, there's about 45 minutes of material that wasn't
> in the movie that he's putting on the DVD.
>
> John Harkness
looks like I am gonna have to give in and buy that drat DVD.....
Santa Claus, you out there?
Jeremy H.
"John Harkness" <j...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message
news:39cf8b1a...@nntp.netcom.ca...
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 08:46:40 -0400, rufi...@rcn.com (Ruth) wrote:
> According to Crowe, there's about 45 minutes of material that wasn't
> in the movie that he's putting on the DVD.
>
> John Harkness
Yeah, and it shows! Almost Famous is so lacking in moments that tie the
entire the film together. Vignettes are fine if there's more than vignettes.
The film lacks any real theme. ... and don't say the theme is the loss of
innocence... it's not! William really seems to be heading toward a lesson,
but then Crowe tosses in absurd 3rd act contrivances that render the whole
film moot. (The movie actually lost me earlier -- about at the scene where
the band sings Tiny Dancer on the bus).
Jeremy
Ruth
<ct...@nospam.gate.net> wrote:
Wow. I think we saw different movies.
John Harkness
Well, remember, Jeremy's a big fan of Dancer in the Dark.
John Harkness
shaking his head in disbelief
Jeremy H.
I really WANTED to enjoy Almost Famous... It just didn't work. I really feel
I would enjoy the true director's cut of the film. I can't imagine chopping
45 mins from your final cut doesn't fuck with your film's rhythms.... I
read somewhere (roughcut or reel i think) that the scene where Penny dances
on the stage was orignally 2 1/2 minutes long... In the shortened version,
it's like 25 seconds. It becomes a "What was that all about moment" ... I
definitely will check out the DVD of the film... I just feel Crowe's not
NEARLY on the same level he was on with Jerry Maguire & Say Anything ...
where he actually had something to say... (and before you debate this, he
actually says in this month's Premiere that he doesn't know what the film's
about...) I just hope he was able to find it in the longer cut...
Jeremy
Jeremy H.
"Ruth" <rufi...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:rufie710-250...@207-172-127-163.s163.tnt1.fmt.nj.dialup.rcn.c
om...
> > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 08:46:40 -0400, rufi...@rcn.com (Ruth) wrote:
> > > According to Crowe, there's about 45 minutes of material that wasn't
> > > in the movie that he's putting on the DVD.
> > >
> > > John Harkness
> >
> >
> > Yeah, and it shows! Almost Famous is so lacking in moments that tie the
> > entire the film together. Vignettes are fine if there's more than
vignettes.
> > The film lacks any real theme. ... and don't say the theme is the loss
of
> > innocence... it's not! William really seems to be heading toward a
lesson,
> > but then Crowe tosses in absurd 3rd act contrivances that render the
whole
> > film moot. (The movie actually lost me earlier -- about at the scene
where
> > the band sings Tiny Dancer on the bus).
> >
> > Jeremy
>
> Wow. I think we saw different movies.
You mean the film that you saw didn't have the following?:
A.) A contrived near-plane wreck where every character completely admits
their failings, and all wounds are patched up.
B.) A pop star who in one sentence mentions he retracted his denial of
William's story, without any explanation of how he had this change of
heart... Even though he doesn't know he's going to see William when Penny
sends him to see him, he still has already had time to stop off at Rolling
Stone & set things right? ... and if he HAD set things right, why wouldn't
William had found out about this?!?!
C.) A static main character... We never see William change. He asks the same
questions in the end interview as in his 1st attempt at an interview. He
temporarily loses faith in Stillwater & Rolling Stone, but that's all made
right, and brushed aside. The film ends with a statement that's something
like "Whoa... a lot happened... I'll have to think about that on the ride
home..." or something... It's really really weak.
D.) A hindered point of view -- Basically the emotional center of the film
is Penny, but we don't see her point of view. What we see is her is filtered
through William. We literally stay outside the room when Penny's "inspiring"
the band members. Even her stomach pumping is romantacized & seen from afar.
William basically remains objective to everything he sees, which results in
a flat movie.
Jeremy
Ruth
<ct...@nospam.gate.net> wrote:
> You mean the film that you saw didn't have the following?:
>
> A.) A contrived near-plane wreck where every character completely admits
> their failings, and all wounds are patched up.
That was hilarious. Played for laughs and obviously every one of them
regretted that they didn't die after all.
> B.) A pop star who in one sentence mentions he retracted his denial of
> William's story, without any explanation of how he had this change of
> heart... Even though he doesn't know he's going to see William when Penny
> sends him to see him, he still has already had time to stop off at Rolling
> Stone & set things right? ... and if he HAD set things right, why wouldn't
> William had found out about this?!?!
It was obvious to me why he had the change of heart....anyone else want to
take this? oh, and I believe there was a phone call involved...he didn't
have to actually *go* to SF.
> C.) A static main character... We never see William change.
thats ridiculous. I felt pain for him as I watched him grow. do you need
these things spelled out?
He asks the same
> questions in the end interview as in his 1st attempt at an interview.
uh, yeah. And why do you think that is????
He
> temporarily loses faith in Stillwater & Rolling Stone, but that's all made
> right, and brushed aside.
yeah,it was brushed aside along with his innocence......
The film ends with a statement that's something
> like "Whoa... a lot happened... I'll have to think about that on the ride
> home..." or something... It's really really weak.
The film ends with a question and an answer. He finally gets to ask
Russell the question that drives their quest...."so what is it you like
about the music?"...the answer is *the* answer.
> D.) A hindered point of view -- Basically the emotional center of the film
> is Penny, but we don't see her point of view. What we see is her is filtered
> through William. We literally stay outside the room when Penny's "inspiring"
> the band members. Even her stomach pumping is romantacized & seen from afar.
huh?
> William basically remains objective to everything he sees, which results in
> a flat movie.
The movie is seen through William's eyes. Penny is seen through Williams
eyes. It worked for me.
If it was so flat I wonder where the tears in my eyes came from? I never
cry at movies. Guess I am just an old shallow lady. Maybe its a
generational thing....how old are you anyway?
To me the movie was a love song to youth, music , movies and exhilaration
and the inevitable loss of innocence..and the fact that loss can actually
be joyful and replaced with something better.........
But I am not too bright.
Ruth
<D...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> I LOVED it. I have seen it 2 times already.The movie is perfect the way it
> is and I am officially in lust with Kate Hudson.(LOL) She glows in this
> film.
A friend of mine met her the other day. Apparently she glows in person as well.
joan harkness
disliked the film. (Except for the guy on here who bashed it without even
seeing it). I have not seen one bad review of this film anywhere.
How common is this and what was the last film that got this much praise from
movie goers and movie critics?????? American Beauty??? (Serious Question).
I LOVED it. I have seen it 2 times already.The movie is perfect the way it
is and I am officially in lust with Kate Hudson.(LOL) She glows in this
film.
I am looking forward to seeing what he left out of it though.
How much do DVDS go for??
DAVE
Jeremy H. wrote in message <8qode7$13j4$1...@news.gate.net>...
>
>"Ruth" <rufi...@rcn.com> wrote in message
>news:rufie710-250...@207-172-127-163.s163.tnt1.fmt.nj.dialup.rcn.
c
>om...
>> In article <8qo90u$m14$1...@news.gate.net>, "Jeremy H."
>> <ct...@nospam.gate.net> wrote:
>>
>> > "John Harkness" <j...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message
>> > news:39cf8b1a...@nntp.netcom.ca...
>> > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 08:46:40 -0400, rufi...@rcn.com (Ruth) wrote:
>> > > According to Crowe, there's about 45 minutes of material that wasn't
>> > > in the movie that he's putting on the DVD.
>> > >
>> > > John Harkness
>> >
>> >
>> > Yeah, and it shows! Almost Famous is so lacking in moments that tie the
>> > entire the film together. Vignettes are fine if there's more than
>vignettes.
>> > The film lacks any real theme. ... and don't say the theme is the loss
>of
>> > innocence... it's not! William really seems to be heading toward a
>lesson,
>> > but then Crowe tosses in absurd 3rd act contrivances that render the
>whole
>> > film moot. (The movie actually lost me earlier -- about at the scene
>where
>> > the band sings Tiny Dancer on the bus).
>> >
>> > Jeremy
>>
>> Wow. I think we saw different movies.
>
>You mean the film that you saw didn't have the following?:
>
>A.) A contrived near-plane wreck where every character completely admits
>their failings, and all wounds are patched up.
>
>B.) A pop star who in one sentence mentions he retracted his denial of
>William's story, without any explanation of how he had this change of
>heart... Even though he doesn't know he's going to see William when Penny
>sends him to see him, he still has already had time to stop off at Rolling
>Stone & set things right? ... and if he HAD set things right, why wouldn't
>William had found out about this?!?!
>
>C.) A static main character... We never see William change. He asks the
same
>questions in the end interview as in his 1st attempt at an interview. He
>temporarily loses faith in Stillwater & Rolling Stone, but that's all made
>right, and brushed aside. The film ends with a statement that's something
>like "Whoa... a lot happened... I'll have to think about that on the ride
>home..." or something... It's really really weak.
>
>D.) A hindered point of view -- Basically the emotional center of the film
>is Penny, but we don't see her point of view. What we see is her is
filtered
>through William. We literally stay outside the room when Penny's
"inspiring"
>the band members. Even her stomach pumping is romantacized & seen from
afar.
>William basically remains objective to everything he sees, which results in
>a flat movie.
>
>Jeremy
>
>
subvers...@my-deja.com
"Jeremy H." <ct...@nospam.gate.net> wrote:
> > Wow. I think we saw different movies.
>
> You mean the film that you saw didn't have the following?:
>
> A.) A contrived near-plane wreck where every character completely
> admits their failings, and all wounds are patched up.
Would you prefer a movie in which nothing happens? And why do you think
that all the wounds were patched? Obviously, they were all very hurt
when leaving the plane.
> B.) A pop star who in one sentence mentions he retracted his denial of
> William's story, without any explanation of how he had this change of
> heart... Even though he doesn't know he's going to see William when
> Penny sends him to see him, he still has already had time to stop off
> at Rolling Stone & set things right? ... and if he HAD set things
> right, why wouldn't William had found out about this?!?!
Um, maybe he had a change of heart because he liked William, and felt
badly about what he had done? Do you really need everything completely
spelled out for you?
> C.) A static main character... We never see William change. He asks
the same
> questions in the end interview as in his 1st attempt at an interview.
He
> temporarily loses faith in Stillwater & Rolling Stone, but that's all
made
> right, and brushed aside. The film ends with a statement that's
something
> like "Whoa... a lot happened... I'll have to think about that on the
ride
> home..." or something... It's really really weak.
What? William learned the reality of what makes the world go around,
learned the dark side of human nature, and even got laid.
> D.) A hindered point of view -- Basically the emotional center of the
film
> is Penny, but we don't see her point of view. What we see is her is
filtered
> through William. We literally stay outside the room when Penny's
"inspiring"
> the band members. Even her stomach pumping is romantacized & seen from
afar.
> William basically remains objective to everything he sees, which
results in
> a flat movie.
Yeah, the stomach pumping scene was so romantic. Anyway, that pov was
used because 1) the entire story was from William's perspective, and 2)
showing Penny being betrayed, through the eyes of someone who loved and
desired her, was very powerful. Being outside the room, as William was,
was also a very powerful device. Although I would love to see some
footage of what was going on inside, this is a separate issue!!
Admittedly, this movie would score some low marks if it were billed as a
porn flick. But it was not, and was an outstanding film.
I was majorly impressed by this film, especially after that overrated
piece of crap, "Jerry Maguire".
--
"American democracy is inverted when what passes for democracy is an
electoral choice between two representatives of the privileged class." -
Tom Morello, Rage Against The Machine
Dean Eaton
etc.) This will also be true of NURSE BETTY.
Dean
joan harkness <D...@netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:AjQz5.10661$YG5....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
> You are the ONLY person I have heard from , or read about, or met who has
> disliked the film. (Except for the guy on here who bashed it without even
> seeing it). I have not seen one bad review of this film anywhere.
>
> How common is this and what was the last film that got this much praise
from
> movie goers and movie critics?????? American Beauty??? (Serious Question).
>
> I LOVED it. I have seen it 2 times already.The movie is perfect the way it
> is and I am officially in lust with Kate Hudson.(LOL) She glows in this
> film.
>
> I am looking forward to seeing what he left out of it though.
>
> How much do DVDS go for??
>
>
> DAVE
>
>
> Jeremy H. wrote in message <8qode7$13j4$1...@news.gate.net>...
> >
> >"Ruth" <rufi...@rcn.com> wrote in message
>
>news:rufie710-250...@207-172-127-163.s163.tnt1.fmt.nj.dialup.rcn.
> c
> >om...
> >> <ct...@nospam.gate.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "John Harkness" <j...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message
> >> > news:39cf8b1a...@nntp.netcom.ca...
> >> > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 08:46:40 -0400, rufi...@rcn.com (Ruth) wrote:
> >> > > According to Crowe, there's about 45 minutes of material that
wasn't
> >> > > in the movie that he's putting on the DVD.
> >> > >
> >> > > John Harkness
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, and it shows! Almost Famous is so lacking in moments that tie
the
> >> > entire the film together. Vignettes are fine if there's more than
> >vignettes.
> >> > The film lacks any real theme. ... and don't say the theme is the
loss
> >of
> >> > innocence... it's not! William really seems to be heading toward a
> >lesson,
> >> > but then Crowe tosses in absurd 3rd act contrivances that render the
> >whole
> >> > film moot. (The movie actually lost me earlier -- about at the scene
> >where
> >> > the band sings Tiny Dancer on the bus).
> >> >
> >> > Jeremy
> >>
> >
> >You mean the film that you saw didn't have the following?:
> >
> >A.) A contrived near-plane wreck where every character completely admits
> >their failings, and all wounds are patched up.
> >
> >William's story, without any explanation of how he had this change of
> >heart... Even though he doesn't know he's going to see William when Penny
> >sends him to see him, he still has already had time to stop off at
Rolling
> >Stone & set things right? ... and if he HAD set things right, why
wouldn't
> >William had found out about this?!?!
> >
> same
> >questions in the end interview as in his 1st attempt at an interview. He
> >temporarily loses faith in Stillwater & Rolling Stone, but that's all
made
> >right, and brushed aside. The film ends with a statement that's something
> >like "Whoa... a lot happened... I'll have to think about that on the ride
> >home..." or something... It's really really weak.
> >
film
> >is Penny, but we don't see her point of view. What we see is her is
> filtered
> >through William. We literally stay outside the room when Penny's
> "inspiring"
> >the band members. Even her stomach pumping is romantacized & seen from
> afar.
> >William basically remains objective to everything he sees, which results
in
> >a flat movie.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Dean Eaton
"R" is mainly for the language and the drug use - sex and nudity are
minimal.
What a great movie, though. I saw it Saturday and liked it so much I snuck
into another screen where it was playing and watched most of it again.
Dean
> know she is super sexy in it. Damn, she is gorgeous!
>
>
Emerick Rogul
: I really WANTED to enjoy Almost Famous... It just didn't work. I really feel
: I would enjoy the true director's cut of the film. I can't imagine chopping
: 45 mins from your final cut doesn't fuck with your film's
: rhythms....
Who said it was "chopped" from the film? Just because Crowe filmed
more footage than he used, it doesn't mean he _planned_ on using all
of it. Other than not being called "Untitled," the film playing in
theaters _is_ the "director's cut" according to everything Crowe's
said so far.
-Emerick
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerick Rogul /\/ "...painted portraits of minions and slaves,
eme...@cs.bu.edu /\/ crotch mavens and one-night plays..."
-------------------------------------------------------- 'here', pavement
joan harkness
choked up...
WARNING...SPOILERS BELOW...
The scene where his mom is at his graduation while he is in New York trying
to keep Penny awake.
The scene where he sees Penny off at the airport and is looking out for her,
and she senses it and looks out the window and he is waving goodbye to her
while running through the airport.
The scene where they are in New York and Penny has gone to the restaurant to
see Russell and the expression on her face when Russell ignores her and the
road Manager tells her that it would be best that she leave . You combine
that with Elton Johns " Mona Lisa's and Mad Hatter's" playing over it and
William running down the New York street looking for her , and you have me
choked up.(LOL). And this is coming from a guy.
I can't remember the last movie that affected me that way.
I am surprised that someone could come out of that movie feeling Flat.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone has different tastes, but
I am still surprised by that.
DAVE
Ruth wrote in message ...
>In article <8qode7$13j4$1...@news.gate.net>, "Jeremy H."
><ct...@nospam.gate.net> wrote:
>
>
>> You mean the film that you saw didn't have the following?:
>>
>> A.) A contrived near-plane wreck where every character completely admits
>> their failings, and all wounds are patched up.
>
>That was hilarious. Played for laughs and obviously every one of them
>regretted that they didn't die after all.
>
>
>
>> B.) A pop star who in one sentence mentions he retracted his denial of
>> William's story, without any explanation of how he had this change of
>> heart... Even though he doesn't know he's going to see William when Penny
>> sends him to see him, he still has already had time to stop off at
Rolling
>> Stone & set things right? ... and if he HAD set things right, why
wouldn't
>> William had found out about this?!?!
>
>It was obvious to me why he had the change of heart....anyone else want to
>take this? oh, and I believe there was a phone call involved...he didn't
>have to actually *go* to SF.
>
>> C.) A static main character... We never see William change.
>thats ridiculous. I felt pain for him as I watched him grow. do you need
>these things spelled out?
>
> He asks the same
>> questions in the end interview as in his 1st attempt at an interview.
>
>uh, yeah. And why do you think that is????
>
> He
>> temporarily loses faith in Stillwater & Rolling Stone, but that's all
made
>> right, and brushed aside.
>
>yeah,it was brushed aside along with his innocence......
>
> The film ends with a statement that's something
>> like "Whoa... a lot happened... I'll have to think about that on the ride
>> home..." or something... It's really really weak.
>
>The film ends with a question and an answer. He finally gets to ask
>Russell the question that drives their quest...."so what is it you like
>about the music?"...the answer is *the* answer.
>
>
>> D.) A hindered point of view -- Basically the emotional center of the
film
>> is Penny, but we don't see her point of view. What we see is her is
filtered
>> through William. We literally stay outside the room when Penny's
"inspiring"
>> the band members. Even her stomach pumping is romantacized & seen from
afar.
>
>huh?
>
>> William basically remains objective to everything he sees, which results
in
>> a flat movie.
>
>The movie is seen through William's eyes. Penny is seen through Williams
>eyes. It worked for me.
>
> If it was so flat I wonder where the tears in my eyes came from? I never
>cry at movies. Guess I am just an old shallow lady. Maybe its a
>generational thing....how old are you anyway?
>To me the movie was a love song to youth, music , movies and exhilaration
>and the inevitable loss of innocence..and the fact that loss can actually
>be joyful and replaced with something better.........
>But I am not too bright.
>
Jeremy H.
"Emerick Rogul" <eme...@csa.bu.edu> wrote in message
news:vuou2b4...@csa.bu.edu...
> Jeremy H writes:
>
> : I really WANTED to enjoy Almost Famous... It just didn't work. I really
feel
> : I would enjoy the true director's cut of the film. I can't imagine
chopping
> : 45 mins from your final cut doesn't fuck with your film's
> : rhythms....
>
> Who said it was "chopped" from the film? Just because Crowe filmed
> more footage than he used, it doesn't mean he _planned_ on using all
> of it. Other than not being called "Untitled," the film playing in
> theaters _is_ the "director's cut" according to everything Crowe's
> said so far.
If that's the case, then Crowe has just failed at making a film that
works..> I don't have a studio to blame... a shame since I am a fan of the
director...
Jeremy
Jeremy H.
m...
> > You mean the film that you saw didn't have the following?:
> >
> > A.) A contrived near-plane wreck where every character completely admits
> > their failings, and all wounds are patched up.
>
> That was hilarious. Played for laughs and obviously every one of them
> regretted that they didn't die after all.
No... it really wasn't funny... it was cliched. They even had a character
say he was gay. That's not funny... that's just lame. The scene simply
didn't work for me... especially as a resolution to the band's problems. It
seemed too convienient... too much a screenplay device. (Though by this
point I had grown critical of the film, and you obviously hadn't... to make
a scene like that work you have to LOVE the characters... )
> > B.) A pop star who in one sentence mentions he retracted his denial of
> > William's story, without any explanation of how he had this change of
> > heart... Even though he doesn't know he's going to see William when
Penny
> > sends him to see him, he still has already had time to stop off at
Rolling
> > Stone & set things right? ... and if he HAD set things right, why
wouldn't
> > William had found out about this?!?!
>
> It was obvious to me why he had the change of heart....anyone else want to
> take this? oh, and I believe there was a phone call involved...he didn't
> have to actually *go* to SF.
Actually, they filmed a scene where he DOES go to SF, but it's left on the
cutting room floor. So in the version we saw, it's not explained that he had
this change of heart,... he just happens to end up at William's house with
the deed already done... Again, this feels very artificial.
> > C.) A static main character... We never see William change.
> thats ridiculous. I felt pain for him as I watched him grow. do you need
> these things spelled out?
Apparently, I do... I think people are reading their own experiences into
this movie... not paying attention to what's actually there... Even when
he loses his virginity, there's no noticeable effect on him... William's a
tape recorder... not a character...
> > He asks the same
> > questions in the end interview as in his 1st attempt at an interview.
> uh, yeah. And why do you think that is????
This is because he hasn't grown... not even as a reporter...
> He
> > temporarily loses faith in Stillwater & Rolling Stone, but that's all
made
> > right, and brushed aside.
>
> yeah,it was brushed aside along with his innocence......
Not really... the ending shows him without any more insight the world...
Since everything works out okay, he really hasn't been taught a lesson.
> The film ends with a statement that's something
> > like "Whoa... a lot happened... I'll have to think about that on the
ride
> > home..." or something... It's really really weak.
>
> The film ends with a question and an answer. He finally gets to ask
> Russell the question that drives their quest...."so what is it you like
> about the music?"...the answer is *the* answer.
Heh, this movie's a perfect example of what happens when people think rock
stars have something interesting to say...
> > D.) A hindered point of view -- Basically the emotional center of the
film
> > is Penny, but we don't see her point of view. What we see is her is
filtered
> > through William. We literally stay outside the room when Penny's
"inspiring"
> > the band members. Even her stomach pumping is romantacized & seen from
afar.
>
> huh?
>
Penny is the character who loses her innocence in a way that's dramatized...
but we don't see it as effectively as we would have had she been the central
character. I think part of my feelings in this direction are because Kate
Hudson turns in a performance far superior to Fugit or Crudrup.
> > William basically remains objective to everything he sees, which results
in
> > a flat movie.
>
> The movie is seen through William's eyes. Penny is seen through Williams
> eyes. It worked for me.
>
> If it was so flat I wonder where the tears in my eyes came from? I never
> cry at movies. Guess I am just an old shallow lady. Maybe its a
> generational thing....how old are you anyway?
> To me the movie was a love song to youth, music , movies and exhilaration
> and the inevitable loss of innocence..and the fact that loss can actually
> be joyful and replaced with something better.........
> But I am not too bright.
Maybe it is a generational thing... I'm 22... This would certainly support
my theory that people are reading THEIR feelings & experiences into the film
& not really paying attention to Williams'. I don't see how this film was a
love song to movies... I thought it was EXTREMELY well shot & very well
acted (especially by Hudson) but definitely lacking... I would definitely be
interested in a more complete version if one exists... I didn't HATE this
movie (**½ out of ****) I just didn't LOVE it either.
Jeremy
Jeremy H.
<subvers...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8qon2i$pvq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> >
> > A.) A contrived near-plane wreck where every character completely
> > admits their failings, and all wounds are patched up.
>
> that all the wounds were patched? Obviously, they were all very hurt
> when leaving the plane.
Obviously I expect there to be a resolution to the problems of the band.. I
just think have it occur in 1 shoddily-written scene is less than optimal.
> > B.) A pop star who in one sentence mentions he retracted his denial of
> > William's story, without any explanation of how he had this change of
> > heart... Even though he doesn't know he's going to see William when
> > Penny sends him to see him, he still has already had time to stop off
> > at Rolling Stone & set things right? ... and if he HAD set things
> > right, why wouldn't William had found out about this?!?!
>
> Um, maybe he had a change of heart because he liked William, and felt
> badly about what he had done? Do you really need everything completely
> spelled out for you?
I think the fact that it wasn't dramatized & was off-handedly mentioned in 1
line of dialog seems like bad writing. I mean the article was the movie's
reason for being. Again, to resolve that plot thread in such a way betrays
the film. To make the band deny the article at all if you're just going to
have them retract it without showing some soul-searching is a bit pointless.
> > C.) A static main character... We never see William change. He asks
> the same
> > questions in the end interview as in his 1st attempt at an interview.
> He
> > temporarily loses faith in Stillwater & Rolling Stone, but that's all
> made
> > right, and brushed aside. The film ends with a statement that's
> something
> > like "Whoa... a lot happened... I'll have to think about that on the
> ride
> > home..." or something... It's really really weak.
>
> What? William learned the reality of what makes the world go around,
> learned the dark side of human nature, and even got laid.
Naaah, he really didn't... I mean he got scared for 2 scenes that the world
wasn't all wine & roses, but it all works out for him... There's no scene
where he really shows growth.
> > D.) A hindered point of view -- Basically the emotional center of the
> film
> > is Penny, but we don't see her point of view. What we see is her is
> filtered
> > through William. We literally stay outside the room when Penny's
> "inspiring"
> > the band members. Even her stomach pumping is romantacized & seen from
> afar.
> > William basically remains objective to everything he sees, which
> results in
> > a flat movie.
>
> Yeah, the stomach pumping scene was so romantic. Anyway, that pov was
> used because 1) the entire story was from William's perspective, and 2)
> showing Penny being betrayed, through the eyes of someone who loved and
> desired her, was very powerful. Being outside the room, as William was,
> was also a very powerful device. Although I would love to see some
> footage of what was going on inside, this is a separate issue!!
> Admittedly, this movie would score some low marks if it were billed as a
> porn flick. But it was not, and was an outstanding film.
>
> I was majorly impressed by this film, especially after that overrated
> piece of crap, "Jerry Maguire".
I said the stomach pumping was romanticized... not romantic... It was shot
from william's perspective... We get long shots of the procedure & there's
never a sense of danger. This IS typical with the rest of the film... but
that's my problem with it... I don't see evidence that william is growing
from these events.
Jeremy
Jeremy H.
"Dean Eaton" <dce...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:VnRz5.6932$tl2.5...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Come Oscar time, though, there will be backlash (It wasn't so great, etc.,
> etc.) This will also be true of NURSE BETTY.
> Dean
I don't think there's a huge surge of support for Nurse Betty right now...
The only things it is a possible contender for are Actress & Screenplay...
I will be the Almost Famous backlash. heh just kidding...
Jeremy
Jeremy H.
"joan harkness" <D...@netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:AjQz5.10661$YG5....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
> You are the ONLY person I have heard from , or read about, or met who has
> disliked the film. (Except for the guy on here who bashed it without even
> seeing it). I have not seen one bad review of this film anywhere.
I can't be held accountable for the world's near-sightedness... :)
> How common is this and what was the last film that got this much praise
from
> movie goers and movie critics?????? American Beauty??? (Serious Question).
Don't make me start knocking american beauty (heh... I actually liked that,
even if the characters were all a bit cardboard around the edges & it wasn't
nearly as clever as it thought).
> I LOVED it. I have seen it 2 times already.The movie is perfect the way it
> is and I am officially in lust with Kate Hudson.(LOL) She glows in this
> film.
Yeah, Kate certainly is a frontrunner for an Oscar ... rightfully so... I
can acknowledge the movie did some things exceptionally (John Toll's
cinematography was fantastic as well), it just didn't work as a whole for
me.
> I am looking forward to seeing what he left out of it though.
Ditto
> How much do DVDS go for??
Players are like $150 -- Movies $25
Jeremy
Helen & Bob
subvers...@my-deja.com wrote:
> A bunch of positive comments re: Almost Famous.
How very, very nice to se a post from subversionmania that is positive about
something. Really quite an improvement.
Bob
Emerick Rogul
: If that's the case, then Crowe has just failed at making a film that
works..: I don't have a studio to blame... a shame since I am a fan of the
: director...
You would seem to be in the minority with that opinion. I think it's
a great movie, personally.
-Emerick
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerick Rogul /\/ "i was going to take every drug known to the
eme...@cs.bu.edu /\/ human race and shag anything that moved."
------------------------------------------------- 'ecstasy', irvine welsh
Ruth
<ct...@nospam.gate.net> wrote:
> Maybe it is a generational thing... I'm 22... This would certainly support
> my theory that people are reading THEIR feelings & experiences into the film
> & not really paying attention to Williams'. I don't see how this film was a
> love song to movies... I thought it was EXTREMELY well shot & very well
> acted (especially by Hudson) but definitely lacking... I would definitely be
> interested in a more complete version if one exists... I didn't HATE this
> movie (**½ out of ****) I just didn't LOVE it either.
>
> Jeremy
Fair enough. I would like to sit down and discuss it with you as I do
better verbally than in writing these days...I see your points......Don't
agree, but I can see that your perspective is interesting and that you may
be right about some of the above arguments....or at least I better
understand how you reached them....
perhaps I will be more coherent tomorrow.
subvers...@my-deja.com
"joan harkness" <D...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> I agree with you Ruth. There were a couple scenes that got me a
little
> choked up...
>
> WARNING...SPOILERS BELOW...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The scene where his mom is at his graduation while he is in New York
> trying to keep Penny awake.
I thought it would have added an interesting plot twist had he made
love to her dying body instead of calling for help. But, it was still
a very good flick.
--
"American democracy is inverted when what passes for democracy is an
electoral choice between two representatives of the privileged class." -
Tom Morello, Rage Against The Machine
Kevin FilmNutBoy
>> WARNING...SPOILERS BELOW...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The scene where his mom is at his graduation while he is in New York
>> trying to keep Penny awake.
>
>I thought it would have added an interesting plot twist had he made
>love to her dying body instead of calling for help.
If that's what you're into, check out "Bad Timing" for a very graphic example
of that.
--Kevin
"I dislike arguments of any kind. They are always vulgar, and often
convincing." --Oscar Wilde
Jonartt
I know that you changed the subject from "Anna Paquin nude scene in Almost
Famous?" to "45 Mins cut from Almost Famous?" but on aol and dejanews.com it's
still the original title, "Anna nude". And since dejanews.com is like a bbs
everytime someone responds the topic goes up to the top of the board, but as
"Anna nude" not "45 Mins". Take a look.
http://www.deja.com/group/rec.arts.movies.current-films
That means that a lot of people who might want to get involved in the
discussion won't. It's also very upsetting to fans of Anna Paquin.
Please start a new topic and copy/paste anything you want to reply to from this
thread.
Thanks.
Aaron Hurley
I've seen mentioned but no one seemed to get.
[SPOILERS]
> B.) A pop star who in one sentence mentions he retracted his denial of
> William's story, without any explanation of how he had this change of
> heart... Even though he doesn't know he's going to see William when Penny
> sends him to see him, he still has already had time to stop off at Rolling
> Stone & set things right?
Remember the scene where Faruiza Balk's (sp?) character and Russell Hammond
are eating from craft services at the Orange Bowl. She tells him that he
did a terrible thing and everyone knows what a lousy thing he
did...even/especially Penny Lane.
I believe THAT is why he called Rolling Stone and changed his tune. He
probably did it before calling Penny Lane and setting up to meet her. He
wanted to right this wrong that she was aware of BEFORE seeing her so he
could prove he'd done the right thing and would not disappoint her.
My $.02
Aaron
Dawn Taylor
>Please create a completely new thread for this discussion.
>I know that you changed the subject from "Anna Paquin nude scene in Almost
>Famous?" to "45 Mins cut from Almost Famous?" but on aol and dejanews.com it's
>still the original title, "Anna nude". And since dejanews.com is like a bbs
>everytime someone responds the topic goes up to the top of the board, but as
>"Anna nude" not "45 Mins". Take a look.
>http://www.deja.com/group/rec.arts.movies.current-films
>That means that a lot of people who might want to get involved in the
>discussion won't. It's also very upsetting to fans of Anna Paquin.
Well, we certainly wouldn't want to derail any insightful discussions
on whether Anna Paquin shows a little tit.
Dawn
-----------------
The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego
ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering
with the pleasures of others. - Bertrand Russell
http://www.dvdjournal.com
da...@dvdjournal.com
subvers...@my-deja.com
Do you know where I could find some good nude Anna Paquin pics online?
Thanks in advance.
subvers...@my-deja.com
You should see my "To Norman Wilner" thread. Anyone who didn't know any
better could actually mistake me for a decent human being.
Ashley Lambert-Maberly
> > disliked the film. (Except for the guy on here who bashed it without even
> > seeing it). I have not seen one bad review of this film anywhere.
> Jeremy responds:
> I can't be held accountable for the world's near-sightedness... :)
I don't want Jeremy to think he's the only one out there who doesn't
think this film is the bee's knees.
I had an almost identical reaction; I went in wanting and expecting to
enjoy it, and I was surprised that I didn't.
"Almost Famous" is the sort of film that I'd never recommend to anyone,
but it's not so dreadful that I'd try to talk anyone out of, either; it's
just disappointing.
I'm glad it moved so many of you--I can cry at coffee commercials,
myself, so I was shocked to remain dry-eyed throughout the entire film.
Partly the blame should be place on Crowe's use of protagonist William,
the "Henry Burton" (Primary Colors) character, barely even a fifth-
business in the plot as shown. I don't subscribe to the school of
thought that everyone must grow or change during a film, but William's
presence seemed far more ephemeral than would be warranted.
Kate Hudson plays beautifully on the great big screen, and I look forward
to seeing much more of her.
Overall, the drama failed to engage me, the romance failed to convince,
and the rare comedy misfired completely (unless Crowe meant us to read
Bandmember D's confession as a moving and emotional admission, in which
case add another demerit point to the drama portion of my argument.) Did
the "Suddenly Susan" team get to polish the script?
(Okay, that last remark was mean.)
I'd give it a grudging thumbs up, if pressed, for technical competence
and good performances, but that's about it. After "Nurse Betty"'s
disappointment (would any audience loving the soap satire enjoy the
scalping, and vice versa?) I had high hopes for Crowe's latest. When
will the great films of 2000 arrive? Is "Chicken Run" going to reap
Oscar gold?
Ashley Lambert-Maberly
*************************
Recently seen & enjoyed: Erin Brokovitch, Adventures of Sebastian Cole
Recently seen & disliked: The Next Best Thing, What Lies Beneath
Recently seen & close, no cigar: Almost Famous, Nurse Betty
Helen & Bob
subvers...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <39CFFD32...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Helen & Bob <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > subvers...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > A bunch of positive comments re: Almost Famous.
> >
> > How very, very nice to se a post from subversionmania that is positive
> about
> > something. Really quite an improvement.
> > Bob
>
> You should see my "To Norman Wilner" thread. Anyone who didn't know any
> better could actually mistake me for a decent human being.
>
Lets not go "too" wild here.
Bob
Helen & Bob
Ashley Lambert-Maberly wrote:
> When
> will the great films of 2000 arrive? Is "Chicken Run" going to reap
> Oscar gold?
From what I have seen this year (Admittedly, far less than normal), there's a
good chance that it will, at least, in the acting and writing categories.
Bob
Maggie Exon
undermining the aim to make the best movie possible right from the start? It
seems silly to salivate over extra scenes not in the theatrical cut and look
forward to the DVD even before the theatrical release is over. I know directors
shoot more than they can use but I would like to think that the final release
was their best shot and that they stick by it (unless they have legitimate
reason to believe that their desired artistic vision was interfered with by the
producers or censors, when a true director's cut is justified).
Maggie
joan harkness wrote:
> You are the ONLY person I have heard from , or read about, or met who has
> disliked the film. (Except for the guy on here who bashed it without even
> seeing it). I have not seen one bad review of this film anywhere.
>
> How common is this and what was the last film that got this much praise from
> movie goers and movie critics?????? American Beauty??? (Serious Question).
>
> I LOVED it. I have seen it 2 times already.The movie is perfect the way it
> is and I am officially in lust with Kate Hudson.(LOL) She glows in this
> film.
>
> I am looking forward to seeing what he left out of it though.
>
> How much do DVDS go for??
>
> DAVE
>
> Jeremy H. wrote in message <8qode7$13j4$1...@news.gate.net>...
> >
> >"Ruth" <rufi...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> >news:rufie710-250...@207-172-127-163.s163.tnt1.fmt.nj.dialup.rcn.
> c
> >om...
> >> In article <8qo90u$m14$1...@news.gate.net>, "Jeremy H."
> >> <ct...@nospam.gate.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "John Harkness" <j...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message
> >> > news:39cf8b1a...@nntp.netcom.ca...
> >> > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 08:46:40 -0400, rufi...@rcn.com (Ruth) wrote:
> >> > > According to Crowe, there's about 45 minutes of material that wasn't
> >> > > in the movie that he's putting on the DVD.
> >> > >
> >> > > John Harkness
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, and it shows! Almost Famous is so lacking in moments that tie the
> >> > entire the film together. Vignettes are fine if there's more than
> >vignettes.
> >> > The film lacks any real theme. ... and don't say the theme is the loss
> >of
> >> > innocence... it's not! William really seems to be heading toward a
> >lesson,
> >> > but then Crowe tosses in absurd 3rd act contrivances that render the
> >whole
> >> > film moot. (The movie actually lost me earlier -- about at the scene
> >where
> >> > the band sings Tiny Dancer on the bus).
> >> >
> >> > Jeremy
> >>
> >> Wow. I think we saw different movies.
> >
> >You mean the film that you saw didn't have the following?:
> >
> >A.) A contrived near-plane wreck where every character completely admits
> >their failings, and all wounds are patched up.
> >
> >B.) A pop star who in one sentence mentions he retracted his denial of
> >William's story, without any explanation of how he had this change of
> >heart... Even though he doesn't know he's going to see William when Penny
> >sends him to see him, he still has already had time to stop off at Rolling
> >Stone & set things right? ... and if he HAD set things right, why wouldn't
> >William had found out about this?!?!
> >
> >C.) A static main character... We never see William change. He asks the
> same
> >questions in the end interview as in his 1st attempt at an interview. He
> >temporarily loses faith in Stillwater & Rolling Stone, but that's all made
> >right, and brushed aside. The film ends with a statement that's something
> >like "Whoa... a lot happened... I'll have to think about that on the ride
> >home..." or something... It's really really weak.
> >
> >D.) A hindered point of view -- Basically the emotional center of the film
> >is Penny, but we don't see her point of view. What we see is her is
> filtered
> >through William. We literally stay outside the room when Penny's
> "inspiring"
> >the band members. Even her stomach pumping is romantacized & seen from
> afar.
> >William basically remains objective to everything he sees, which results in
> >a flat movie.
> >
> >Jeremy
> >
> >
Just an ordinary Brandon, with peanuts
<mag...@biblio.curtin.edu.au> wrote:
> Have we lost the idea that a movie has integrity as a work of art? Is
> DVD
> undermining the aim to make the best movie possible right from the start?
> It
> seems silly to salivate over extra scenes not in the theatrical cut and
> look
> forward to the DVD even before the theatrical release is over.
Shrug. People often love early sketches of paintings or rough demos of
songs. DVD offers a chance not only at the film but the process of
filmmaking.
--
-Brandon Blatcher (spamblocked, remove hidden implants to reply)
Why is lemon juice made with artificial flavor and
dishwashing liquid made with real lemons?
Thomas Andrews
Just an ordinary Brandon, with peanuts <nom...@worldnet.hiddenimplants.att.net> wrote:
>In article <39D148D2...@biblio.curtin.edu.au>, Maggie Exon
><mag...@biblio.curtin.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> Have we lost the idea that a movie has integrity as a work of art? Is
>> DVD
>> undermining the aim to make the best movie possible right from the start?
>> It
>> seems silly to salivate over extra scenes not in the theatrical cut and
>> look
>> forward to the DVD even before the theatrical release is over.
>
>
>Shrug. People often love early sketches of paintings or rough demos of
>songs. DVD offers a chance not only at the film but the process of
>filmmaking.
>--
>-Brandon Blatcher (spamblocked, remove hidden implants to reply)
But the real question is, are directors bowing to studio pressure too
easily now, with the promise that the "director's cut" will be
available on DVD? Does it placate them too much?
--
Thomas Andrews tho...@best.com http://www.best.com/~thomaso/
"We have met Big Brother, and he is us." - Me, 1996,
after playing with the AltaVista search engine
John Harkness
wrote:
>In article <nomadic-8DFC58...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Just an ordinary Brandon, with peanuts <nom...@worldnet.hiddenimplants.att.net> wrote:
>>In article <39D148D2...@biblio.curtin.edu.au>, Maggie Exon
>><mag...@biblio.curtin.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Have we lost the idea that a movie has integrity as a work of art? Is
>>> DVD
>>> undermining the aim to make the best movie possible right from the start?
>>> It
>>> seems silly to salivate over extra scenes not in the theatrical cut and
>>> look
>>> forward to the DVD even before the theatrical release is over.
>>
>>
>>Shrug. People often love early sketches of paintings or rough demos of
>>songs. DVD offers a chance not only at the film but the process of
>>filmmaking.
>>--
>>-Brandon Blatcher (spamblocked, remove hidden implants to reply)
>
>But the real question is, are directors bowing to studio pressure too
>easily now, with the promise that the "director's cut" will be
>available on DVD? Does it placate them too much?
>
>--
>Thomas Andrews
I doubt that that's the case here, with Crowe coming off his biggest
hit -- this is his cut, and he's not said anything to the contrary.
It's his "get out of jail free" movie.
As I understand, the film won't be longer or cut differency on DVD --
it will have the scenes lost in the edit as a bonus.
John Harkness
joan harkness
scene where Penny is dancing in the empty auditorium. The scene is actually
about 2 minutes long but he cut it down in the final version.
DAVE
John Harkness wrote in message <39d16dc0....@nntp.netcom.ca>...
Dean Eaton
MOVIE & VIDEO GUIDE, "What are we paying our eight or nine bucks to see in a
theater - a rough draft?" Any viewing of a DVD with deleted scenes will
demonstate why the scenes were cut, though, and the directors always have a
good reason for doing so in their commentaries.
Dean
Just an ordinary Brandon, with peanuts
news:nomadic-8DFC58...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
Andrew Johnston
@nntp.netcom.ca>:
> doubt that that's the case here, with Crowe coming off his biggest
>hit -- this is his cut, and he's not said anything to the contrary.
>It's his "get out of jail free" movie.
>
>As I understand, the film won't be longer or cut differency on DVD --
>it will have the scenes lost in the edit as a bonus.
>
>
No, it's been pretty widely reported that it'll eventually be a 2-DVD set
with the theatrical cut on one disc and the 2hr40 min version--titled
UNTITLED--on disc 2. Crowe has definitely made it clear that there's a
longer version and that it will surface.
Dawn Taylor
wrote:
>>As I understand, the film won't be longer or cut differency on DVD --
>>it will have the scenes lost in the edit as a bonus.
>>
>
>No, it's been pretty widely reported that it'll eventually be a 2-DVD set
>with the theatrical cut on one disc and the 2hr40 min version--titled
>UNTITLED--on disc 2. Crowe has definitely made it clear that there's a
>longer version and that it will surface.
Studios still -- flukes like "Magnolia" withstanding -- rope directors
in pretty strictly as far as film length is concerned. It's not
uncommon for directors to wish they had been able to include scenes
that had to be chopped for the sake of time restrictions.
Does that mean the finished product isn't "complete"? Not at all. But
with DVDs directors have the chance to let movie lovers see the stuff
that they didn't get to use, and that's cool for viewers, for the
director, for the writers who may have seen some of their favorite
scenes disappear, and for actors who may have worked for weeks on a
segment that ended up on the cutting room floor.
Of course, with a lot of movies nobody really cares. Did I need
outtakes from "Galaxy Quest"? Not really. Personally, I wish Scorsese
would put out a "directors cut" of "New York, New York" -- his
original version was reportedly over three hours long, with additional
musical numbers and a subplot dealing with DeNiro's character's heroin
addiction. Now THAT would be a good use of the medium.
krom...@my-deja.com
the story with the running time that will work best commercially is
always a 'fight' between the director and the producers. I would think
that in most cases (excepting the PITA directors :-) ) both sides agree
that ~2 hours is the 'ideal' movie length.
A director may feel that, although he likes the longer cut, most people
will prefer a tighter, faster paced cut. Maybe a shorter cut really
*is* superior, but a longer cut can be a better experience the 2nd time
through the movie. In this case, both cuts are important. I dont think
a director can be said to be 'compromised' in a situation like this.
FWIW, I thought the theatrical cut of AF felt like it was missing fill-
in scenes. Relationships developed far quicker in 'movie time' than
they should have. I would like to see the longer cut to see if the film
is fleshed out better.
(I still thought it was a really good film, though)
Andy K.
In article <39d204b2....@news.pacifier.com>,
dawn...@pacifier.com (Dawn Taylor) wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2000 13:20:43 GMT, and...@echonyc.com (Andrew Johnston)
> wrote:
>
> >>As I understand, the film won't be longer or cut differency on DVD -
-
> >>it will have the scenes lost in the edit as a bonus.
> >>
> >
american damon
"Just an ordinary Brandon, with peanuts" wrote:
>
> In article <39D148D2...@biblio.curtin.edu.au>, Maggie Exon
> <mag...@biblio.curtin.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > Have we lost the idea that a movie has integrity as a work of art? Is
> > DVD
> > undermining the aim to make the best movie possible right from the start?
> > It
> > seems silly to salivate over extra scenes not in the theatrical cut and
> > look
> > forward to the DVD even before the theatrical release is over.
>
> Shrug. People often love early sketches of paintings or rough demos of
> songs. DVD offers a chance not only at the film but the process of
> filmmaking.
yes, and i't best to see the rough cut in the format is was designed
for,
and the polished version in a format it wasn't designed for!
--
People say men are genetically engineered to prefer polygamy, but
you don't see that many women upset enough when their husbands leave
them to shoot everybody in sight.
SJRaff
>in pretty strictly as far as film length is concerned.
I wish the studio had made Anderson cut about an hour from "Magnolia". it
might have been a decent film then!
Stephen Rafferty
Los Angeles
Tiocfaidh Ar La
Just an ordinary Brandon, with peanuts
<dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
> "Just an ordinary Brandon, with peanuts" wrote:
> >
> > In article <39D148D2...@biblio.curtin.edu.au>, Maggie Exon
> > <mag...@biblio.curtin.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Have we lost the idea that a movie has integrity as a work of art?
> > > Is
> > > DVD
> > > undermining the aim to make the best movie possible right from the
> > > start?
> > > It
> > > seems silly to salivate over extra scenes not in the theatrical cut
> > > and
> > > look
> > > forward to the DVD even before the theatrical release is over.
> >
> > Shrug. People often love early sketches of paintings or rough demos of
> > songs. DVD offers a chance not only at the film but the process of
> > filmmaking.
>
>
> yes, and i't best to see the rough cut in the format is was designed
> for,
> and the polished version in a format it wasn't designed for!
quit being such a prick that takes things to extremes all the time.
if you can.
DVD offers more options. How we use those options is determined by us.
rather than bitching at the technology, complain to the studios and
directors if it really bothers you and you're not just arguing for the
sake of arguing.
Now piss before I call your mother on you.
american damon
"Just an ordinary Brandon, with peanuts" wrote:
>
> In article <39D2770B...@mdo.net>, american damon
> <dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
>
> > "Just an ordinary Brandon, with peanuts" wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <39D148D2...@biblio.curtin.edu.au>, Maggie Exon
> > > <mag...@biblio.curtin.edu.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Have we lost the idea that a movie has integrity as a work of art?
> > > > Is
> > > > DVD
> > > > undermining the aim to make the best movie possible right from the
> > > > start?
> > > > It
> > > > seems silly to salivate over extra scenes not in the theatrical cut
> > > > and
> > > > look
> > > > forward to the DVD even before the theatrical release is over.
> > >
> > > Shrug. People often love early sketches of paintings or rough demos of
> > > songs. DVD offers a chance not only at the film but the process of
> > > filmmaking.
> >
> >
> > yes, and i't best to see the rough cut in the format is was designed
> > for,
> > and the polished version in a format it wasn't designed for!
>
> quit being such a prick that takes things to extremes all the time.
> if you can.
now where would the fun in that be!
> DVD offers more options. How we use those options is determined by us.
woo hoo!
> rather than bitching at the technology, complain to the studios and
> directors if it really bothers you and you're not just arguing for the
> sake of arguing.
because the usenet's not for general bitching and complaining!
> Now piss before I call your mother on you.
like she'd listen to you after LAST time.
Jeremy H.
"Ashley Lambert-Maberly" <ash...@oldadm.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.143a93074...@news.interchange.ubc.ca...
> Overall, the drama failed to engage me, the romance failed to convince,
> and the rare comedy misfired completely
Oh yeah, there were some STRAINED jokes in this film... Besides the "I'm
gay" joke, there was the "fax machine" joke... and at least one other real
groaner that i'm forgetting at the moment, he really shouldn't have had his
characters making jokes that would be funny only when viewed from the year
2000...
If Crowe was snip-happy with his film........
Jeremy
Jeremy H.
"Maggie Exon" <mag...@biblio.curtin.edu.au> wrote in message
news:39D148D2...@biblio.curtin.edu.au...
> Have we lost the idea that a movie has integrity as a work of art? Is DVD
> undermining the aim to make the best movie possible right from the start?
It
> seems silly to salivate over extra scenes not in the theatrical cut and
look
> forward to the DVD even before the theatrical release is over. I know
directors
> shoot more than they can use but I would like to think that the final
release
> was their best shot and that they stick by it (unless they have legitimate
> reason to believe that their desired artistic vision was interfered with
by the
> producers or censors, when a true director's cut is justified).
> Maggie
I'm only looking toward the DVD version with excitement, since I expected to
enjoy the film & didn't. I felt a lot of the film was underdeveloped or tied
up too quickly. This is precisely the sort of thing that extra footage could
fix, if Dreamworks releases a version of the film that integrates the
footage instead of just putting those scenes on the disc. I can't help but
think AF's 2 hour running time is an attempt by Dreamworks to make the film
more acceptable to a mass audience right now. Once Oscar nominations are
due, they'll release the "director's cut" and stirr up fresh buzz.... It's
not that i discounted the movie BECAUSE of the 45 mins of missing footage...
it's just that the prospect of that much footage puts another blip on my
horizon, since I generally do like Crowe's work & the movie seems
salvageable.
Jeremy
Jeremy H.
It's very naive to think that he had no studio pressure on a $60 million
film. He WILL release a 2 disc set with the longer cut of the film. This was
known before the film was out in theaters.... that can't be for no reason at
all... I can't imagine Crowe doesn't prefer the long cut... if he didnt, why
would it exist? I think Crowe doesn't want to disown the film or do
anything rash, but that long cut should surface before Oscars are handed
out....
Jeremy
Jeremy H.
> Crowe said the only thing he would change about the final version is the
> scene where Penny is dancing in the empty auditorium. The scene is
actually
> about 2 minutes long but he cut it down in the final version.
>
> DAVE
Where'd he say that??
Jeremy
Jeremy H.
"SJRaff" <sjr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000927230317...@ng-df1.aol.com...
> >Studios still -- flukes like "Magnolia" withstanding -- rope directors
> >in pretty strictly as far as film length is concerned.
>
> I wish the studio had made Anderson cut about an hour from "Magnolia". it
> might have been a decent film then!
Yeah, with an hour missing, it might have been only "decent" instead of
great.
Jeremy
joan harkness
version and a version that was 2hrs and around forty minutes. He said that
the test audiences preferred the verison you see in theatres and that he
prefers it too. He got in everything thing that he wanted to in the final
cut. The only thing that he would change was the scene with Penny in the
auditorium. He regrets not letting it go the full minute and half to 2
minutes.
Dave
Jeremy H. wrote in message <8r1rqb$14ls$1...@news.gate.net>...
>
>"joan harkness" <D...@netcom.ca> wrote in message
>news:uffA5.11579$YG5....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
>> Crowe said the only thing he would change about the final version is the
>> scene where Penny is dancing in the empty auditorium. The scene is
>actually
>> about 2 minutes long but he cut it down in the final version.
>>
>> DAVE
>
Emerick Rogul
:: Crowe said the only thing he would change about the final version
:: is the scene where Penny is dancing in the empty auditorium. The
:: scene is : actually about 2 minutes long but he cut it down in the
:: final version. DAVE
: Where'd he say that??
Let's get some facts straight here: Crowe has gone on record in
several interviews saying that he had final cut approval on the film
and that he did in fact exercise it in keeping Penny Lane's dancing
scene. The version of the film we saw is most likely a combination of
the version he wanted us to see _and__ the version that worked best
with a real audience. _But_, he also shot extra footage that he
doesn't want to lose, and the DVD format allows him to get away with
that. But I wouldn't call that version the "director's cut."
From the interview here
(http://www.checkout.com/movies/features/info/0,7697,2076976-3,00.html):
Will there be an alternate, longer version on the DVD?
We have a 2 hour and 40 minute cut that will be called Untitled. I
can't give that up! (laughs) You know, people ask me about that all
the time now, "What about all this celebrated indecision [about the
title]?" There was no indecision. It was always called Untitled. It
was just really hard and ultimately I lost in the battle of getting
DreamWorks to go for it. So we went for this earlier title, which
works for a lot of reasons. But still, we always showed the movie as
Untitled. The longer version of it feels like it should be called
Untitled.
Was there pressure from the studio to cut it down?
Well, they were supportive in that they wanted me to shoot, as Steven
Spielberg said, "every word of your script," which was amazing. It was
a 172-page script. What they were anxious to do and what I wanted to
do as a director was to get the version that best told the story, so
we did six previews to see where we were losing people and how to
sharpen the jokes.
-Emerick
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerick Rogul /\/ "when i'm getting serious about a girl, i show
eme...@cs.bu.edu /\/ her 'rio bravo' and she better fucking like it."
------------------------------------------------------- quentin tarantino
joan harkness
and they were on a journey to try and capture a time and a place , and a
humor, and a love for music.
The movie he delivered to them is what you see in theatres. It is the best
version. The longer version that will be on DVD is for collectors. it shows
more great moments that the actors captured. The final cut played like the
album that he wanted it to play like. This version gets across everything
that he wanted it to. He wanted it to take you away to a different world.
One scene that was cut out was where "William" plays all of Stairway to
Heaven for his mother to convince her to let him go on the road. There will
be a countdown on the screen where you will be able to put you copy on at
the same time. This will be on the DVD. There will be also a lot of detours
that they took that will be on the DVD.
The DVD will also feature Sillwaters complete 6 song concert. Including a
song called.... "Tongue and Bung". As well as an acoustic version of "Fever
Dog".
He said that eveything in the film happened except not always in the same
order that it did in the film. It is not a spoof or a parody but a tribute
to the people that he knew back then.
Billy crudup said they watched tapes of The Allman Brothers, Bad Company and
Led Zeppelin to help with the performances. Jason Lee said Paul Rodgers of
Bad Company was his main preforming influence.
DAVE
joan harkness wrote in message ...
>When he was here at the Toronto Film festival. He said there was this
>version and a version that was 2hrs and around forty minutes. He said that
>the test audiences preferred the verison you see in theatres and that he
>prefers it too. He got in everything thing that he wanted to in the final
>cut. The only thing that he would change was the scene with Penny in the
>auditorium. He regrets not letting it go the full minute and half to 2
>minutes.
>
>Dave
>
>
>Jeremy H. wrote in message <8r1rqb$14ls$1...@news.gate.net>...
>>
>>"joan harkness" <D...@netcom.ca> wrote in message
>>news:uffA5.11579$YG5....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
>>> Crowe said the only thing he would change about the final version is the
>>> scene where Penny is dancing in the empty auditorium. The scene is
>>actually
>>> about 2 minutes long but he cut it down in the final version.
>>>
>>> DAVE
>>
>>Where'd he say that??
>>
>>Jeremy
>>
>>
>
>
SJRaff
>Yeah, with an hour missing, it might have been only "decent" instead of
>great.
>
>Jeremy
No, without an hour missing it might have been decent instead of a laboriously
self-indulgent mess of a movie.
Frisco Del Rosario
<ct...@nospam.gate.net> wrote:
> Oh yeah, there were some STRAINED jokes in this film... Besides the "I'm
> gay" joke, there was the "fax machine" joke... and at least one other real
> groaner that i'm forgetting at the moment, he really shouldn't have had his
> characters making jokes that would be funny only when viewed from the year
> 2000...
Now wait a second. =) I laughed heartily at the fax machine gag because I
was there once (sure, anything's gonna be funnier if it hits closer to
home) -- first time I saw a fax machine, I said to my businessman friend,
"hey, what's this, some kinda newfangled copy machine?".
"well, kinda!" he said, suddenly excited because he saw an opportunity to
show the thing off, "it's a 'facsimile machine' -- it lets people send
copies of documents to each other over the phone!". He then proceeded to
call everyone he knew with a facsimile machine -- um, maybe three people
-- to ask them if they'd send one to him, but no one was at the office
that Saturday.
The revelation gag was funny because it was so obviously tearing at the
poor guy while everyone else is airing the dirtiest laundry imaginable. It
also reminded me of other closeted gay musicians who spent their road
careers pretending to love the attention from those pretty young "band
aids".
--
Writer
Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow -- http://www.mojonation.net
Jeffrey Davis
>
> In article <8r1rcg$1188$1...@news.gate.net>, "Jeremy H."
> <ct...@nospam.gate.net> wrote:
>
> > Oh yeah, there were some STRAINED jokes in this film... Besides the "I'm
> > gay" joke, there was the "fax machine" joke... and at least one other real
> > groaner that i'm forgetting at the moment, he really shouldn't have had his
> > characters making jokes that would be funny only when viewed from the year
> > 2000...
>
> Now wait a second. =) I laughed heartily at the fax machine gag because I
> was there once (sure, anything's gonna be funnier if it hits closer to
> home) -- first time I saw a fax machine, I said to my businessman friend,
> "hey, what's this, some kinda newfangled copy machine?".
Irrelevant factoid. IIRC, the fax machine was invented shortly after the
telegraph.
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu>
The John Dortmunder of Lexington, Ky
Kevin FilmNutBoy
>Almost Famous is so lacking in moments that tie the
>entire the film together. Vignettes are fine if there's more than vignettes.
>The film lacks any real theme. ... and don't say the theme is the loss of
>innocence... it's not!
Just because the theme eluded you doesn't mean there wasn't one.
A major theme of the film was, "be honest about who you are or trouble will
follow."
Every major character arc demonstrated this theme. William lies about his age,
and struggles with whether he wants to be accepted by the cool folks or be an
honest journalist. (Lester Bangs urges William to be honest about who he is.)
Penny Lane is not honest about who she is: she lies about her age, and never
reveals her true name. Her heartaches occur because she lacks the will to be
honest about her true self -- she's disconnected from her true feelings.
(William urges Penny to be honest about who he is.)
Russel struggles to be more "real," to discover who he really is. He lies to
Rolling Stone, but finally admits the truth. (William's mother urges Russel to
be honest about who he is.) The band itself struggles with a identity crisis.
My god, the film was practically SCREAMING this theme, and you missed it.
Major scenes revolved around the theme: during the plane incident, band members
are honest for the first time about who they really are. The "I'm gay" joke is
not a throwaway laugh line: it's theme reinforcement.
One may argue over whether this theme is adequately expressed, or a worthy
theme, etc. But to not recognize this as a theme is to have watched the film
with your brain in neutral.
Interestingly, the person in the film who really knows herself is William's
mother. This is a major reversal from many films made during the era the film
depicts, when parents were seen as part of the corrupt "establishment." Here,
the rock and rollers like Penny and Russel are lost, but good old Mom is wise,
if a bit overprotective. This movie might have been booed off the screen had
it been shown to Led Zeppelin fans and their ilk in 1973.
--Kevin
"I dislike arguments of any kind. They are always vulgar, and often
convincing." --Oscar Wilde